The Rent Control Legislation is a self-contained code, and principles of res judicata do not apply when circumstances change between petitions filed under different Acts.

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Alka Sarin, J.

The present revision petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 21.01.2023 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana reversing the order dated 23.01.2020 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana-cum-Rent Controller vide which the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC read with Order 9, Rule 9 CPC filed by the petitioner herein was allowed and the petition filed by the respondent herein was dismissed.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present case that the landlord-respondent filed a petition under Section 24(D) of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (Punjab Act No.13 of 2012) for a direction to the tenant-petitioner to put him in vacant possession of the shop as shown red in the plan annexed with the petition and described in detailed in the petition. The tenant-petitioner filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC read with Order 9, Rule 9 CPC for dismissal of the petition primarily on the ground that the case was barred by principles of res judicata as also Order 9, Rule 9 CPC as an earlier petition filed by the landlord-respondent under Section 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was dismissed in default on 03.01.2018. Reply was filed to the said application. The Rent Controller vide order dated 23.01.2020 allowed the application holding the rent petition to be barred under the provisions of Order 9, Rule 9 CPC. Aggrieved by the same the landlord-respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority which was allowed vide the impugned order dated 21.01.2023. Hence, the present revision petition by the tenant-petitioner.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the tenant-petitioner would contend that the present case was barred by the provisions of Order 9, Rule 9 CPC as the landlord-respondent, at his whims and fancies, was filing one petition after another on the same cause of action. The earlier petition under Section 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was dismissed due to the absence of the landlord-respondent and the landlord-respondent failed to get the same restored and had instead now filed the present petition under Section 24(D) of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 on the same cause of action. Reliance has been placed by the learned senior counsel on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra)(D) through LRs & Ors. [(2020) 7 SCC 366] and a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mehtab Singh v. Shri. Tilak Raj Arora & Anr. [1988 (1) RCR (Rent) 159].

4. Per contra learned counsel for the landlord-respondent has contended that the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC could not be entertained on the ground that the rent petition was barred by the principles of res judicata and that the same could be gone into only after evidence had been led. In support thereof learned counsel for the landlord-respondent has relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors. [2021 (3) RCR (Civil) 768] and a judgment of this Court in the case of Surinder Kaur & Anr. v. Rattan Chand Duggal @ R.R. Duggal [2005 (2) RCR (Rent) 428].

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties

6. In the present case the brief facts need to be noticed. The tenancy in the present case was created in the year 1987. A petition under Section 13B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was filed by the landlord-respondent and vide order dated 10.09.2011 leave to contest was declined to the tenant-petitioner. CR-6870-2011 was filed by the tenant-petitioner and the same was allowed vide order dated 09.05.2017 granting leave to contest to the petitioner-tenant. On 03.01.2018 the rent petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. An application for restoration was filed by the landlord-respondent which wa