1987 (2) TMI 251 - SC - Indian Laws

Suit for eviction filed by the Landlord - Held that - In the present case, in the proceeding to set aside an ex-parte order, the Court recorded an express finding that the landlord had agreed to withdraw the suit and receive the rent from the tenant. That was a finding which was binding on the landlord at later stages of the proceeding. He could have questioned the finding before the appellate authority and the High Court in the appeals preferred by the tenant. He did not choose to do so. In fact he could not do so as he had earlier thought it prudent not to enter the witness box though he put the question in issue in the proceeding to set aside the ex-parte order by contesting the statement of the tenant. In the circumstances we allow the appeal, set aside the judgments of the High Court and subordinate tribunals and dismiss the petition for eviction.

Summary

Issues:
1. Setting aside an ex-parte eviction order based on misrepresentation by the landlord.
2. Applicability of the principle of res judicata in the context of eviction proceedings.

Analysis:

1. The appeal involved a tenant contesting an eviction order under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act based on default in rent payment. The tenant initially deposited rent arrears but later alleged that the landlord had agreed to withdraw the eviction case, leading to the setting aside of the ex-parte decree. The court found that the tenant acted on the misrepresentation of the landlord, who failed to rebut the tenant's claims. The court emphasized the landlord's acceptance of rent during the proceedings as evidence of a settlement between the parties. Consequently, the ex-parte decree was set aside due to sufficient grounds of misrepresentation by the landlord, leading to the tenant's non-appearance in court.

2. Following the setting aside of the ex-parte decree, the eviction petition was ordered again based on the same grounds of rent default. The appellate authority and the High Court upheld the eviction order, disregarding the findings from the earlier proceedings to set aside the ex-parte order. The Supreme Court, however, held that the principle of res judicata applies between different stages of the same litigation. The court highlighted that findings from earlier stages are binding, subject to appeal against the final judgment. In this case, the court's earlier finding that the landlord had agreed to withdraw the suit and receive rent from the tenant was deemed binding on later stages of the proceedings. The landlord's failure to challenge this finding at subsequent stages led the Supreme Court to dismiss the petition for eviction, emphasizing the importance of adhering to earlier court findings within the same litigation.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the lower courts, and dismissed the petition for eviction based on the misrepresentation by the landlord and the application of the principle of res judicata in the context of the eviction proceedings.