Back
High Court Of Orissa
K. P. MOHAPATRA
MANIKA DEI - Appellant
Versus
DHADIA MADGUL - Respondent
CIV. REVN. 15 Of 1984
Decided On : 03/04/1986
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 10 - STAY OF SUIT - HOUSE RENT CONTROL ACT - SECTION 7 - JURISDICTION OF HOUSE RENT CONTROLLER - RES JUDICATA - EXPLANATION VIII TO SECTION 11 OF THE CODE - INTERPRETATION - COURT OF LIMITED JURISDICTION - DECISION OF HOUSE RENT CONTROLLER ON ISSUE OF LANDLORD AND TENANT RELATIONSHIP - OPERATES AS RES JUDICATA IN SUBSEQUENT SUIT - STAY OF SUIT TILL DISPOSAL OF WRIT PETITIONS CHALLENGING HOUSE RENT CONTROLLER'S DECISION - GRANTED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction in respect of a property, claiming that they acquired title through a gift and adverse possession. Opposite party No. 1, who claimed title through a sale deed, initiated two house rent control proceedings against the petitioners, alleging the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The House Rent Controller found no such relationship, but the Chief Judicial Magistrate reversed this finding. The petitioners filed writ petitions challenging the Chief Judicial Magistrate's decision and also filed a petition under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) seeking a stay of the suit until the disposal of the writ petitions, apprehending that the finding of landlord-tenant relationship would operate as res judicata in the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the House Rent Controller, under Section 7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the issue of landlord-tenant relationship, and his decision is final and cannot be challenged in any court of law. The court further held that the House Rent Controller is a 'court of limited jurisdiction' within the meaning of Explanation VIII to Section 11 of the CPC, and therefore, his decision on the issue of landlord-tenant relationship will operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit, even though the House Rent Controller is not competent to try the suit itself. The court also noted that if the finding of the Chief Judicial Magistrate upholding the landlord-tenant relationship is upheld in the writ petitions, it would preclude the petitioners from establishing their title through gift or adverse possession in the suit.
Issues: 1. Whether the House Rent Controller is a 'court of limited jurisdiction' within the meaning of Explanation VIII to Section 11 of the CPC. 2. Whether the decision of the House Rent Controller on the issue of landlord-tenant relationship operates as res judicata in the subsequent suit. 3. Whether the suit should be stayed until the disposal of the writ petitions challenging the House Rent Controller's decision.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Explanation VIII to Section 11 of the CPC, which provides that an issue heard and finally decided by a court of limited jurisdiction shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit, even if the court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try the subsequent suit. The court held that the expression 'court of limited jurisdiction' includes courts whose jurisdiction is subject to a pecuniary limitation, and not just courts other than ordinary civil courts. 2. The court held that the House Rent Controller, under Section 7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the issue of landlord-tenant relationship, and his decision is final and cannot be challenged in any court of law. Therefore, the House Rent Controller is a 'court of limited jurisdiction' within the meaning of Explanation VIII to Section 11 of the CPC, and his decision on the issue of landlord-tenant relationship will operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit. 3. The court held that since the finding of the Chief Judicial Magistrate upholding the landlord-tenant relationship, if upheld in the writ petitions, would preclude the petitioners from establishing their title through gift or adverse possession in the suit, it is appropriate to stay the suit until the disposal of the writ petitions.
Final Decision: The court allowed the civil revision petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed that Suit No. 132 of 1979 pending in the court of the Munsif, First Court, Cuttack shall remain stayed until the disposal of O. J. C. Nos. 111 of 1983 and 112 of 1983 of this Court.
K. P. MOHAPATRA, J.
( 1 ) THIS revision is against the order passed by the learned Munsif, First Court, Cuttack rejecting a petition under S. 10 of the Civil P. C. ('code' for short ). The plaintiffs are the petitioners.
( 2 ) THE facts may be recounted in brief. Deceased Nilap Naga was the owner of the schedule 'c' land of the plaint. He had one son, opposite party No. 2 (b) and four daughters, petitioner 1, opposite party No. 2 (c), opposite party No. 2 (d) and Jamuna (defendant No. 2 (e) in T. S. No. 132 of 1979 ). Petitioner No. 2 is the husband and petitioner No. 3 is the son of petitioner 1. Opposite party No. 1 is the husband of opposite party No. 2 (c ). Opposite party No. 1 initiated two proceedings (H. R. C. Case No. 32 of 1979 and H. R. C. Case No. 52 of 1979) against the petitioners under S. 7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act ('act' for short) before the learned House Rent Controller, Cuttack on the grounds that there was an agreement for sale of the schedule 'c' and with a house standing thereon for consideration of Rs. 3,000/- between Nilap Naga and Opposite party No. 1 on 27-11-1978 and on the same day the suit land was delivered by the former to the latter. On 28-3-1979 Nilap Naga executed and registered a sale deed in favour of opposite party No. 1 in respect of the suit land. The petitioners being close relations were inducted as monthly tenants at will in respect of the house on the suit land with effect from 1-12-1978 on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/- and again with effect from 1-4-1979 on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/ -. Opposite party No. 1 required the suit land for his own occupation and further the petitioners defaulted in payment of rent. Therefore, in the two house rent control proceedings, opposite party No. 1 prayed for eviction of the petitioners from the house on the suit land. The petitioners resisted and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. Their case was that at the time of marriage of petitioner 1 with petitioner 2 in 1944 the latter became the illatom son-in-law of Nilap Naga who made a gift of the suit land with a house thereon in favour of petitioner No. 1 and delivered possession of the suit land to her. After the gift, the petitioners are not only in possession of the same, but also added houses thereto. They have acquired title in respect thereof by adverse possession.
( 3 ) WHILE the eviction proceedings were pending before the learned House Rent Controller, the petitioners instituted Title Suit No. 132 of 1979 against opposite party No. 1 and others. They alleged in the plaint that at the time of marriage between petitioner 1 and petitioner 2 in the year 1944 Nilap Naga made a gift of the schedule 'c' land to petitioner No. 1. After the marriage, petitioner 2 lived with Nilap Naga as his illatom-son-in-law and both the husband and wife remained in occupation of the schedule 'c' land by adding houses thereto. Since then they have been in possession of the suit land continuously and without interruption to the knowledge of the opposite parties on the strength of their own right and have acquired title by adverse possession. Their prayer is to restrain the opposite parties permanently from entering upon the schedule 'c' land of the plaint. The defence of opposite party No. 1 is that there was an agreement for sale of the schedule 'c' land between him and Nilap Naga on 27-11-1978 in pursuance of which he came into possession thereof. The petitioners were inducted as tenants with effect from 1-12-1978. There was no gift of the suit land by Nilap Naga in favour of petitioner 1, nor were the petitioners in possession thereof since 1944 on the strength of their own right.
( 4 ) THE learned House Rent Controller on consideration of the evidence and materials placed before him came to hold that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between Opposite Party No. 1 and the petitioners. Therefore, he rejected both the petitions for eviction. Opposite party No. 1 preferred two app
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
