ORDER

1. This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 6.12.2021 passed by 14th Additional District Judge, Bhopal in MJC No.276/2021 by which the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority under section 10 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act has been put for execution.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of this petition in short are that an order under section 10 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act was passed by the Rent Controlling Authority thereby determining the standard rent. An appeal is pending against the said order. The order of fixing standard rent was put for execution. In the execution proceedings, the petitioner filed an application for stay of further proceedings. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected.

3. Challenging the order passed by the Court below, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that an order under section 10 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act is not executable under section 35 M.P. Accommodation Control Act. It is submitted that if the landlord/owner wants to execute the order passed under section 10 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, then he has to file a suit either for recovery of arrears or for eviction.

4. To buttress her contention the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order passed a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Triveni Bai (Smt.) v. Smt. Vimla Devi reported in 2011(I) MPWN 86.

5. Per contra the counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Triveni Bai (Smt.) (supra), has held that the order passed under section 10 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act is not executable and if the landlord wants to recover the arrears, then he has to file a civil suit. Paragraphs No. 6 and 7 of the said order reads as under :

“6. The Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mulamchand 1973 JLJ 489= 1973 MPLJ 632 has held in paragraph 26 :--

“26. The above discussion leads to the following conclusions :--

(1) The bar of res judicata operates also as between two stages in the same litigation.

(2) A decision in a writ proceedings operates as res judicata in a subsequent suit based on the same cause of action between the same parties.

(3) The principle of res judicata is based on the need of giving finality to a judicial decision. Once a res judicata, it shall not adjudged again. The underlying principle is that the parties should not be vexed twice over.

(4) Even where section 11, Civil Procedure Code, does not apply, the principle of res judicata may apply for the purpose of achieving finality in litigation.

(5) A question of law is as much in issue as a question of fact. The expression "matter in issue" is not confied to issues of fact; it includes issues of law as well.

(6) But, for the purposes of the rule of res judicata, the issue of law must be an abstract question of law, it must be one relating to its applicability or non-applicability to the facts and circumstances of the particular case.

(7) Even an erroneous decision on an issue of law operates as res judicata. Exceptions to this rule are (i) where by a subsequent legislation, the law, as applied in the earlier decision, is altered. However, a different interpretation of the law as given in a subsequent binding preceeding is not the same thing as altering the law. (ii) Where the question of law is one purely relating to the jurisdiction of the Court. (iii) Where the decision of the Court sanctions something which is illegal. 'Illegality' in this context refers to an act prohibited by law.

(8) As between a decision which operates as res judicata and another which is binding procedent, though not res judicata, the former prevails. (9) A decision of the Supreme Court is binding on all Courts by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution, but it is not the same thing as to say that a decision of the Supreme