S. D. KHARE, J. :- In this civil revision the only question that requires consideration is whether the decision given by a Court of Small Causes in a suit for arrears of rent will operate as res judicata in a suit filed later in the Court of Munsif for the recovery of arrears of rent for a different period and for ejectment.

2. The Court of Small Causes had no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for ejectment, and therefore, the latter suit had to be filed in the Court of Munsif.

3. The dispute between the parties in the Court of Small Causes was about the rate of rent. The plaintiff was claiming rent at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month, while the defendants' case was that the rate of rent was Rs. 10/-per month only. The decision of the Judge, Small Cause Court, on merits was that the rate of rent was Rs. 10/-per month only. In the subsequent suit, out of which this revision application arises, the plaintiff, while praying for ejectment of the defendants, claimed rent for the period preceding the second suit at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month. It was in these circumstances that the question arose whether the decision given by the Judge, Small Cause Court, about the rate of rent will operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit filed before the Munsif for arrears of rent and ejectment.

4. The Munsif decided that issue in the negative and in favour of the plaintiff. The revision application has been filed by the defendants against that order.

5. It was listed for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court, who noticed that there was a conflict of opinion on this point in two cases decided by this Court, both being Single Judge decisions. He, therefore, referred this case to a larger Bench. The Division Bench, which next heard it, was of the opinion that the question was of general importance, and, therefore, it was proper that it should be considered by a Full Bench. That is how this revision application has come before us for disposal.

6. The revision application will have to be dismissed in case we hold that the decision given by the Judge, Small Cause Court, will not operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit for arrears of rent and ejectment filed in the Court of Munsif.

7. Section 11, Civil Procedure Code provides as to when a decision given in a prior suit will operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit. Section 11, Civil Procedure Code reads as follows :-

"11. No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.

Explanation 1. - The expression 'former suit' shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto.

Explanation II - For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court.

Explanation III. - The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other.

Explanation IV. - Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit.

Explanation V. - Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused.

Explanation VI. - Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under th