The principle of res judicata does not apply if a fresh application is filed on changed circumstances, and the earlier petition was not adjudicated upon on merits.

JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan J. (Oral) - Prayer in this revision petition is for setting-aside the order dated 24.10.2013 passed by the Lower Appellate Court vide which the findings recorded by the Rent Controller on Issue No.2 were reversed and the eviction petition filed by the petitioner/landlord was allowed by the Rent Controller was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, on the ground that the respondent is in possession of House No.L-6 situated in Shri Jainendra Gurukul premises, Sector 1, Old Panchkula, District Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as 'the premises in dispute') on a monthly rent of Rs.100/- per month and is liable to be evicted on the following grounds:-

a) Arrears of rent;

b) The premises is required for the personal requirement of the petitioner as the accommodation, which is 25 years old, has outlived its life, is required for the personal necessity of the petitioner as a degree college with hostel, classroom, staff, accommodation needs to be constructed for the students.

3. The respondent/tenant contested the suit on various grounds including the plea that the petitioner/landlord earlier filed a rent petition No.14 of 2004, which was decided on 08.06.2007 and therefore, the present petition is barred by res judicata under Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure.

The Rent Controller framed the following Issues:-

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for eviction of the respondent on the ground as mentioned in the petition? OPP.

2. Whether the present petition is maintainable in the present form and plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present petition? OPR.

3. Whether there is no relation of landlord and tenant between the parties? OPR.

4. Whether the plaintiff has come to the court with clean hands and has concealed the true and material facts from the court? OPR.

5. Whether the present petition is barred by jurisdiction? OPR.

6. Relief.

4. Thereafter, both the parties led their respective evidence and the Rent Controller vide judgment dated 14.05.2012 held that as per the minutes of meeting of the Managing Committee of the petitioner, it is decided to demolish the existing building and construct a new degree college alongwith the buildings required for hostel accommodation, etc.

5. It is also noted that though, at one point of time, the land was acquired by the Government but it was released later on and the possession throughout remained with the petitioner/landlord.

6. Accordingly, the Rent Controller decided Issues No.1 and 3 in favour of the petitioner that the petitioner/landlord is entitled for eviction of the respondent.

7. Under Issue No.2, regarding the maintainability of the petition, it was held that the petition is not barred by the principle of res judicata as on appreciation of the earlier ejectment petition (Ex.P-8) and written statement (Ex.R-9) and on perusal of the judgment dated 08.06.2007 (Ex.R-1) a finding was recorded that the rent petition was dismissed for want of evidence as the petitioner failed to lead any evidence in the said case. It was held by the Rent Controller that the said judgment, which did not decide the inter se dispute between the parties is not binding and therefore, the principle of res judicata does not apply.

8. The respondent/tenant filed an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court and the Lower Appellate Court reversed the findings on Issue No.2 by making the following observations:-

"19. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the case file it is observed that the present petition has been filed by the respondent- landlord which is a registered body duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and when one of the persons, who has been authorised to file the present petition by a resolution Ex.P1 and there is no objection from the other members of the society, he is fully competent to sign,