The court clarified the interpretation of res judicata in eviction cases, emphasizing the necessity of considering statutory provisions of the Rent Control Act over civil procedure principles.

ORDER

K.Harilal, J.

The revision petitioner is the tenant, against whom an order of eviction has been passed concurrently by the courts below under Sections 11(4) (iii) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (Hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act'). (Parties are referred to as in the Rent Control Petition). According to the petitioner, the tenant is having another building in his possession within the same town and the said building is kept vacant. Similarly, he wants to expand his business and for that, the petition schedule building complex has to be reconstructed in three stages and the first stage has been completed. He has sufficient means to complete reconstruction of the building complex and he has already obtained plan and license from the Municipality.

2. The respondent resisted the claim for eviction under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act contending that the building pointed out by the petitioner is a residential building and that building is not suitable for his present business. It is further claimed that the son of the tenant is residing in the said building and he has no other residential building in his possession. Therefore, he is not liable to be evicted under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act. As regards the claim for eviction under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act, it is contended that the building does not require reconstruction. The requirement for reconstruction is also a pretext for eviction. Thus the claim for reconstruction is not a bona fide claim. It is also contended that earlier, the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest has filed RCP.No.12/1995 seeking an order of eviction under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act and the said claim for eviction was rejected by the Rent Control Court and affirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the revisional authority. Therefore, the present Rent Control Petition itself was barred by Section 15 of the Act. But, the courts below have failed to consider the bar under the res judicata in its correct perspective. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the Rent Control Petition.

3. On the rival pleadings, both parties adduced evidence and after considering the evidence on record, the courts below concurrently found that the respondent has another building in his possession and the said building is suitable for shifting the business from the tenanted premises and that the need for reconstruction of the building is bona fide and the petitioner has sufficient means to reconstruct the building. The legality, propriety and correctness of the aforesaid finding are challenged in this revision petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent focussed his argument to canvass the point that the Rent Control Petition itself was barred by res judicata as provided under Section 15 of the Act. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, in the earlier RCP.No.12/1995 filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, he has sought for an order of eviction under Section 11(4) (iii) of the Act on the ground that the respondent has another building in his possession and the said building was rented out to a tenant, and subsequently he got vacant possession of that building and the said building is suitable for conducting the respondent's business. In this RCP also, the petitioner has raised the very same grounds under Sections 11(4)(iii) of the Act to get an order of eviction and thereby the present petition was actually barred by res judicata, as provided under Section 15 of the Act.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner advanced arguments to justify the findings of the Appellate Authority that the respondent has failed to prove res judicata so as to create a bar under Section 15 of the Act. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to Ext.A9 order passed by this Court in CRP.No.1440/2010 and contended that in that