S.P.GOYAL, J.

1. The following question of law was referred by me in R.S. As. Nos. 1821 and 1822 of 1978 to a larger Bench as the correctness of several decisions of this Court was challenged on the basis of a number of Supreme Court cases.

"Whether the decision of Rent Controller under the rent control laws or a Revenue Court under Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act upon the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties operates as res judicata and is not open to challenge in a subsequent suit or in other collateral proceedings between the parties?

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present controversy are that the appellants filed a suit in the Court of Assistant Collector First Grade Ballabhgarh for the ejectment of the respondent on the ground of non-payment of rent and personal need which was decreed on October 29, 1976. Instead of filing any appeal against that judgment, the respondent brought the present suit for declaration that he was in possession of the land in dispute as a mortgagee; that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the judgment and decree of ejectment was without jurisdiction and void. As he was dispossessed during the pendency of the suit in execution of the decree of the Revenue Court, relief of possession was introduced by way of amendment of the plaint.

3. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence of the parties, held that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and dismissed the suit. The finding of the trial Court was reversed, on appeal, by the learned Additional District Judge with the result that the decree of the Revenue Court was declared to be void and the suit decreed. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants have filed the said second appeals in this Court.

4. The main ground urged by the learned counsel to impugn the decree under appeal was that the judgment of the Revenue Court operated as res judicata between the parties and was not open to challenge in a Civil suit. Reliance for this proposition of law was placed on a Supreme Court decision in Om Parkash Gupta V/s. Dr. Rattan Singh, 1963-65 Pun LR 543 and three Division Bench judgments of this Court in Muni Lal V/s. Chandu Lal, 1968-70 Pun LR 473; Ambala Bus Syndicate (P) Ltd. V/s. Indra Motors Kurali 1968-70 Pun LR 960 and J.G. Kohli V/s. Financial Commissioner Haryana, 1975 Ren CJ 689 : (AIR 1976 Punj and Har 107) The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, claimed that Om Parkash Gupta s case (supra) does not support the proposition of law put forward by the appellants and challenged the correctness of the three Division Bench decisions of this Court relying on the said Supreme Court case and two other decisions in Magiti Sasamal V/s. Pandab Bissoi, AIR 1962 SC 547 and Durga Singh V/s. Thelu, AIR 1968 SC 361 It was under these circumstances that the above noted question was referred by me for decision to a larger Bench.

5. Though in these appeals, we are directly concerned with a judgment of the Revenue Court under the Punjab Tenancy Act and not with the judgment of the Rent Controller under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949 yet I framed the question in such a fashion so as to include the judgments of both the Revenue Court as well as the Rent Control because all the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants related to the proceedings under the Rent Act. Otherwise also, so far as the proposition of law involved is concerned, there is no distinguishing feature between the judgment of the Rent Controller and the Revenue Court under the said Acts.

6. The question referred to us, in my view, stands fully covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Om Parkash Gupta s case (1963-65 Pun LR 543) (supra) and has to be answered in the negative. But a contrary view was taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Muni Lal s case (1968-70 Pun LR 473) (supra) relying on the same decision of the Supreme Court