LAL CHAND (DEAD) BY L.RS. & ORS. versus RADHA KISHAN

LAL CHAND .(DEAD) BY L.RS. & ORS. v.

RADHA KISHAN December 11, 1976

[Y. v. C!IANDRACHUD AND P. K. GOSWAMI JJ.J

Civil Procedure Code-Sec. 11-Res judicata-Whether exhaustive--Rationale behind Order 41 rule 4 in case of decree involving common grounds whether iurvive. one_ of the defendants can · appeal-I/ right to sue to other defendant does -not

Interpretation of statutes-Polley ·of statute-Advancing remedy-Protection of slum dwellers. . • . · . _ Slum Areas (Impr9ve1nent and Clearance) Act 1956-Sec. 19(1), 19(4), 31A-Whether suit for evicrion against tenant in slum area maintainable without prior permission of the authority under the Act-Whether decree of eviction can be executed without such permissio~Jurisd~ction of Civil Court barred to decide matters which the competent authority is empowered to decide-· .

Delhi Rent Control Act 1958-Sec. 2(1)-DefinitiOil in Delhi Rent Control Act whether applicable in Slum Clearance Act.

The respondent who owns house let out S rooms on the ground floor and 2 rooms on the second floor in the said house to one Lal Chand. The respon~ dent filed suit in the year 1958 in the Court of tlie Sub Judge for evicting Lal Chand, Kesho Ram, Jhangi Ram, Nand Lal and Smt Kakibai alleging that Lal Chand had sublet the premises to four of them. The eviction was sought on the ground of personal requirenieni. reconstruction and arrears of rent. The proceedings ended by the judgment of the High Court which granted decree Pf eviction in respect of all 7 rooms in favour of the respondent. Since the snit property is situated in slum area the respondent filed an application under section 19(2) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance Act, 1956 for perm.is.sion of the competent· authority to eXecute the decree for posset..>Sion obtained by him against Lal Chand and others. The competent authority after taking into account the factors mentioned in section 19(4) of that Act passed an order permitting the respondent to execute the decree in respect of the 2 rooms situated on the second floor only. The respondent was expressly refused per[4 ]mission to execute the decree- in regard to the S rooms situate on the ground floor. An appeal filed by the respondent to the Administrator failed. Pursuant to the said order the possession of the 2 rooms on the second floor was handed over to the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent filed Regular Suit in the year 1966 against Lal ,Chand, Kesho Ram and Jhangi Ram for possession of the remaining S rooms on 'the ground floor. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court. Nandlal and Kakibai were not impleaded because they had surrendered possession of the twO rooms on the second floor. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court Lal Chand, Kesha Ram and Jhangi Ram filed an appeal. DurinJi the pendency of the said aooeal Lat Chand died whereupon his widow and his son. applied for being brought on record in that appeal as his legal representatives. The AppelTate Court upheld the objection of the respondent that in view of the ejectment decree Lal Chand had ceased iO be tenant and, therefore, on his death the right to su~ did not survive to his heirs. The Court, therefore, dismissed the appeal. Kesho Ram. Jhangi Ram and the leJ?al repre~ sentatives of Lal Chand filed second apoeal in the Hi.2h Court. The High Court upheld the decision of the ApneUate Court and held that on the death of Lat Chand during the pendencv of the first appeal the cause of action did not survive to his legal representatives and that there was nO one who could legiti-mately prosecute that appeal.

Allowing the appeal by Special Leave.

HEID : 1. The ~uit out of which the: appeal before the High Court ar06e was filed by the respondent not only against Lal Chand but also against Kesho Ram and Jhangi Ram who were all in possession of the ground floor premises. The case of the respondent in the earlier round of litigation that Lal Chand had sublet the premises to Kesho Ram and Jhangf Ram was not pursued. The ejectment decree did not rest on the ground of alleged-subletting. [526C-D]

2. Since the suit was filed against Lal Chand alongwith · Kesho Ram ana Jhangi Ram and since they were as much aggreived by the ejectm.ent decree as Lal Chand himself Mld since they were entitled to equal protecrion ·of the Slum Clearance Act, the appeals could not have been dismissed by the first Appellate Court and the High Court on the ground that Lal Chand had died without leav-ing heritable interest. Even if it is assumed that Lal Chand left no surviving cause of action .to his heirs, the two other appellants Kesho Ram and Jhangi Ram had real and substantial inteiest in prosecuting the appeal in their · own right. Under Order 41 rule 4 of the C.P.C. where there ai-e more plaintiffs or more defendants than one in suit and the decree appealed from proceeds on any grounds common to all the plaintiffs: or to all the defendants, any one of the plaintiffs or defendants can appeal from the whole decree and thereupon the .... appellate Court may reverso or vary the decree in favour Of all the plaintiffs or defendants as the case may be.. [526E-H, 527A-C] ·

3. The observation of the High Court that Kesha Ram and Jhangi Ram were sub-tenants and they had, therefore, no independent tight to continue the appeal, is without any basis. [527-0]

-4. Under Section 19(1) of the Slum Aieas (Improvement and Clearance) Act,_ 1956, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force no person shall except with the previous permission in writing of the competent authority institute any suit or proceeding for the eviction of tenant from any building or land in slum area after the 1964 amendment and where any decree or order is obtained before the 1964 amendment it cannot be executed without the previous: permission in writing of the competent authority. tenant against whom decree of eviction is passed under thC Delhi Rent Con-trol Act is also tenant within- the meaning of section 19 of the Slum Clearance Act. The word .. tenant has not been defined in the Slum Clearance Act. Under Sec. 2(1) of the Delhi Relit Control Act, 1958, tenant does not include any person against whom any order of decree for evictiOn has been made. However, the Slum Clearance Act has not adopted that definition. Since clause (b) of section 19(1) of the Slum Clearance Act prohibits the execution of decree for eviction it is clear that person against whom decree for eviction is obtained also continues to be a. tenant.· The role is well settled that where the same expression is: used in the same statUte at different places, the samo meaning _ought to be given to that expression as far as possible. The Slum Clearance l......,--I Act was passed~ inter alia, for the protection of tenants in slum areas from I eviction. The policy of the Slunr Clearance Act being that the slum dweller , should not be evicted unless alternative accommodation is available to him, the word tenant in section 19(1)(a) must for the pUrpo6CS of advancing the remedy provided by th'! Statute be constmed to include person against whom decree or order for eviction has been passed. [5280-E, 529A·D, H, 530A-D] ·

Bardu Ram Dhanna Ram T. Ram Chander Khibru, A.I.R. 1972 Delhi 34, foIIowed.

lAkshmi Chand v. Kauran Divi, [1966] 2 SCR 5-44, distinguished.

S~ Since the respondent did not obtain permission of the competent autho-rity for instituting th: present suit _for obtaining decree for eviction of Lal Chand and since Lal Chand mUst be held to. be tenant for the purposes of sec· timi 19(1)(a) the suit was incompetent. [531-B]

6. Th, suit is also barred by section 37 of the S[1]um Clearance Act which takes: away the jurisdiction of Civil Court in respect of any matter which the

competent authority or any other person is empowered by or under the Act to determine. [531-C.D]

7. The present suit filed by the respondent is also barred by principle analogous to res judicata. The respondent after obtaining decree for eviction against Lal Chand and his alleged sub-tenants applied for permission of the competent authority to execute the decree. Permission was granted to him to execute the decree in respect of the 2 rooms on the second floor only and in pursuance of that permission he obtained possession of these 2 rooms. By the present suit the respondent is once again asking for the relief which was includ-ed in the larger relief sought by him in the application filed by him under the Slum Clearance Act and which was expressly denied to him. The fact that section 11 of C.P.C. cannot apply on its terms since the earlier proceeding before the competent authority was not suit, is no answer to the extension of the principle underlying section 11 to the instant case. Section 11 is not exhaustive and th~ principle which motivates that section can be extended to cases which do not fall strictly within the letter of the law. The issues involved in the two proceedings are identical, those issues arise as between the same parties and thirdly tile issue now sought to be raised was decided finally by competent quasi-judicial Tribunal. The principle of res judicata is conceived in the larger public interest which requires that all litigation must, sooner than later, come to an end. The principle is also founded on _equity, justice and good conscience which require that party which has once succeeded on an issue should not be permitted to be harassed by multiplicity of proceedings involving determination of the same issue. [532-A-El

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 636 of 1975.

(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Decree dated the 30-9-1974 of the Delhi High Court in R.S.A. No. 316 of 1967).

N. C. Sikri and A. D. Sikri, Advocates for the appellants.

S. K. Mehta, K. R. Nagaraja and P. N. Puri, Advocates for res-pondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

CHANDRACHUD, J.-The respondent Radha Krishan who owns hou'se No. 142, Katra Mashru, Delhi let out portion thereof consist-ing of five rooms on the ground floor and two rooms on the second floor to one Lal Chand. He filed suit No. 42 of 1958 in the Court of the Sub-Judge, Delhi for evicting Lal Chand and four others Kesho Ram, Jhangi Ram, _Nand Lal and Smt. Kak:ibai, alleging that Lal Chand had sublet the premises to them. The eviction of these persons ....Jwas sought by the respondent on the grounds that the premises for his own use and occupation; (2) he wanted to provide (1) he required).....,....l certain essential amenities for himself necessitating re-construction; and (3) that the tenant was in arrears of rent. By his judgment• dated June 6, 1959 the learned Sub-Judge, First Class, Delhi decreec"[1 ]the suit on the first ground only and rejected the other two conten-tions. In an appeal filed by the defendants, the learned Senior Sub-• Judge, Delhi confirmed the finding of the Trial Court that the accom-modation at the disposal of the respondent was ·insufficient, but he thought 'that the needs of the respondent would be met adequately if he were given po'ssession of the two rooms on the second floor only. Feeling however that there was no provision in the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, under which the suit was filed, for giving possession of part of :the demised premises to the landlord, the learned Judge confirmed the decree of the Trial Court. The Circuit

Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi upheld that judgment on February 6, 1962 in Civil Revision No. 609-D of 1960 on the ground that the landlord required the entire premises for his personal u·se and occupation.

__ Since the suit property is situated in slum area, the respondent filed an application under s. 19(2) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 96 of 1956, for permission of the competent authority to execute the decree for possession obtained by him against Lal Chand and others. The competent authority after taking into account the factors mentioned in s. 19 ( 4) of that Act, passed an order permitting the respondent to execute the decree in respect of the two rooms situated on the second floor only. Respondent was expres·sly refused permission to execute the decree in regard to the premises situated on the ground floor.

Aggrieved by that order, :the. respondent filed an appeal to the Administrator under s. 20 of the Slum Clearance Act, 1956. The appeal was heard by the Chief Commi'ssioner of Delhi who confirmed· the order of the competent authority. Pursuant to his order, the defen-dants handed over possession of the two rooms on the second floor to the respondent.

This, however, was not the end of the matter. Having obtained posses·sion of part of the premises, the respondent embarked upon fresh round of litigation giving rise to this appeal. He filed regular Civil Suit No. 435 of 1966 against Lal Chand, Kesho Ram and Jhangi Ram for possession of the remaining rooms on the ground floor. That suit was decreed by the Trial Court on May 4, 1967. Nand Lal and Kakibai were not impleaded to the suit presumably because they had surrendered possession of the two rooms on the second floor in pur-suance of th.e order passed in appeal under the Slum Clearance Act.Aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, Lal Chand, Kesho Ram and Jhangi Ram filed Civil Appeal No. 35 of 1967 in the Court of the Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi. During the pendency of that appeal Lal Chand died oh June 13, 1967 whereupon, his widow Bhiranwan Bai and his son Khem Chand applied for being brought on the record of the appeal as his legal representatives. That applica-tion was contested by the respondent on the ground that by reason of the ejectment decree Lal Chand had ceased to be tenant and upon his death during the pendency of the appeal, the right to sue did not survive to hls heirs. This contention was upheld by th,e learned appel-late Judge who by his judgment dated November 18, 1967 dismissed the appeal as also the application filed by Lal Chand's widow and son for being brought on the record as his legal representatives.

These legal representatives and the two other defendants, Kesho Ram and Jhangi Ram, filed second appeal No. 316 of 1967 in the High Court of Delhi again'st the judgment of the learned Additional Senior Sub-Judge. learned Single Judge of the High Court held by his judgment dated September 30, 1974 that on the death of Lal Chand during the pendency of the first appeal, the cause of action did not survive to his legal representatives to continue the ·appeal and

that therefore there was no one who could legitimately prosecute that appeal. The learned Judge, accordingly, confirmed the judgment of the first appellate Court and dismissed the second appeal. This appeal by special leave is filed by the legal representatives of Lal Chand as also by Kesho Ram and Jhangi Ram.

In taking the view that the legal representatives of Lal Chand had no right to continue the appeal after Lal Chand's death, the High Court relied on decision of this· Court in Anand Nivas Private Ltd. v. Anandji Kalvanji Ped/U('). It was held in that case that on the determination of the contractual tenancy the tenant becomes statutory tenant having no estate or interest in the premises occupied by him and that the right of the statutory tenant to remain in possession after the determination of the contractual tenancy being personal to him is not capable of being transferred or assigned and cannot devolve on his death on his heirs or legal representatives. While relying on this decision, the High Court overlooked an important consideration. The suit out of which the appeal before the High Court and this appeal arise was filed by the respondent not only against Lal Chand but against Kesho Ram and Jhangi Ram also, who were all in possession of the ground floor premises. The case of the respondent in the earlier round of litigation that Lal Chand had sublet the premises to Kesho Ram, Jhangi Ram, Naud Lal and Kakibai remained in the realm of mere allegations and was not pursued. Naturally, the ejectment decree did not rest on the ground of sub-letting and came to be passed on the sole ground that the respondent required the premises for his personal use and occupation. Since two out of the five defendants against whom the ejectment decree was pa·ssed were impleaded as defendants in the present suit alongwith Lal Chand and since .they had filed the appeal jointly with1 Lal Chand, they had the right of prosecuting the appeal no less than Lal Chand himself had. Kesho Ram and Jhangi Ram were as much aggrieved by the ejectment decree as Lal Chand himself and they were entitled alongwith Lal Chand to an equal protection of the Slum Clearance Act. They were parties to the application which was filed by the respondent before the competent authority for permis-sion to execute the decree for possession and the refusal of that authority to allow the respondent to execute that decree in regard to the premises situated on the ground floor must necessarily ensure for their benefit as much for the benefit · of Lal Chand himself. Therefore, whether Lal Chand was statutory tenant or not and whether the ratio in Anand Niwas's case would apply to the present proceedings which arise out of the Delhi Rent Control Act of 1958, .the appeals could not have been dismissed by the fitst appellate Court and the High Court on the ground that Lal Chand had died without leaving heritable interest and therefore his legal representatives had no right to continue the appeal. Assuming that Lal Chand, being statutory tenant, left no surviving cause of action to his heirs, the two other appellants, Kesho Ram and Jhangi Ram, had real and substantial interest in p~osecuting the appe?l in their own

right, particularly in view of the findings of the Chief Commissioner of · Delhi in the appeal filed under s. 20 of the Slum Clearance Act.

Not only was it erroneous to treat the appeal as having abated on the death of Lal Chand but the first appellate Court as well as the High Court ought to have applied the provisions of Order XLI r. 4, Code of Civil .Procedure, under which where there are more plaintiffs or. more defendants than one in suit, and the decree appealed from proceeds on any ground common to all the plaintiffs or to all the defendants, any one of the .Plaintiffs or defendants may appeal from the whole decree, and thereupon the appellate Court may reverse or vary the decree in favour of all the plaintiffs or defendants, as the case may be. In the earlier suit for eviction filed by th~ respondent under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, Lal Chand and his alleged sub-tenants were all impleaded to .the suit as defendants. The decree for eviction was eventually passed in that suit in favour of the respondent and against the defendants jointly. All of these defendants contested the proceeding before the competent authority under the Slum Clearance Act and they succeeded in obtaining an order therein that it was not open to the respondent to execute the decr~e in ·respect of the premises on the ground floor. In order to overcome the effect of that order respondent brought the present suit and in the very nature of things he had to implead Kesho Ram and Jhangi Ram to that suit as party-defendants alongwith Lal Chand. On the death of Lal Chand during the pendency of the first appeal the other appel-lants, who were as much interested in the success of the appeal as Lal Chand, were before the <:;ourt and the appeal could not have been dismissed for the mere reason that Lal Chand had no longer any interest or estate in the property. The eviction decree being joint and· indivisible, the dismissal of the appeal in so far a's Lal Chand was concerned could conceivably result in inconsistent decrees being passed in the event of the appeal of Kesho Ram and Jhangi Ram ·being allowed. Therefore, the first appellate Court ought to have heard the appeal on merits and decided the question whe!her the provisions of the Slum Clearance Act operated a's bar to the maintainability of the suit brought by the respondent.

The High Court observes in its judgment that Kesho Ram and Jhangi Ram were sub tenants and they had therefore no independent right to continue the appeal. We see no justification for this observa-tion because in the earlier suit, though the respondent had alleged that Lal Chand had sublet the premises to the other defendants in-eluding Kesho Ram and Jhangi Ram, the ejectment decree was passed • on the sole ground that the respondent required the premises for his personal use and occupation. In fact, in that suit the allegation of sub-tenancy though made in the plaint was at no stage pursued and the judgment of the Trial Court did not deal with that allegation at all. No issue was framed and no finding recorded on the question of sub-letting. ·

The High Court seems to have been impressed by the contention that the suit was not maintainable by reason of the provisions of s.

37A of the Slum Clearance Act, but it thought that Lal Chand having died there was no one before the Court who could legitimately contend that the suit was not maintainable. As stated before thi.s was an erroneous approach to lhe problem, which makes it necessary for us to examine the merits of the contention as regards the maintain-ability of the suit. • The main contentions raised by Lal Chand, Kesho Ram and Jhangi Ram by their written statements in the present suit are that they are tenants within the meaning of the Slum Clearance Act despite the passing of the ejectment decree against them, that the suit brought by the respondent was not maintainable in view of the provisions of the Slum_ Clearance Act and that the respondent was estopped from bringing the suit since he had already obtained possession of the two '[[.l' ]]rooms on the second floor in pursuance of the permission granted by . the competent authority. The first two of these contentions have to . \ be answered in the light of_ the relevant provisions of the Slum Clear-\--. ance Act to which we must now turn.

• The main contentions raised by Lal Chand, Kesho Ram and Jhangi

'[[.l' ]]\--.

Section 19 (1) of the Slum Clearance Act reads thus

"19. Proceeding's for eviction of tenants not to be taken without permission of the competent authority.-( 1) Not-withstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no person shall, except with the previous permission in writing of the competent authority,-

(a) institute, after the commencement of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Amendment Act, 1964, any suit or proceeding for obtaining any decree or order for the eviction of tenant from any building or land in slum area; or

(b) whe;e any decree or order is obtained in any suit or proceeding instituted before such commencement for the eviction of tenant frQm any building or land in such area, execute such decree or order."

Ari'sing out of this provision, the question for decision is whether the present suit is barred for the reason that before instituting it,. respon-dent had not obtained permission of the competent authority. It being common ground that such permission was not obtained and that •the building in question is situated in slum area, the decision of this question ttirn's on the consideration whether in spite of the fact that an ejectment decree was passed against Lal Chand in the earlier suit, he continued to be 'tenant' for the purposes of the Slum Clearnnce Act, especially within the meaning of s. 19 (1 )(a) thereof. The Trial· Court held that Lal Chand ceased to be tenant after the oassimi; of the ejectment decree and therefore the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit for possession against him was not barred under any of the provisions of the Slum Clearance Act. This question, as stated earlier, has not been dealt with either by the first appellate

Court or by the High Court in second appeal since they took the view that on .Lal Chand's death during the. pendency of the first appeal, the proceedmgs had abated.

The word 'tenant' has not been defined in the Slum Clearance Act but s. 2(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958, defines it thus : . · "2(1) "tenant" means any person by whom or on whose acco_unt or behalf the rent of any premises is, or buf for special contract would be, payable and includes sub-tenal!-t a?d also ~ny person continuing in possession after the tert?mat1on of his tenancy but shall not. include any person agamst whom any order. or decree for eviction has been made;" ·

This definition has been amended by Act 18 of 1976 but the amended definition alSo provides bys. 2(1) (A) that the word 'tenant' shall not include any person against whom an order or decree for eviction has been made, except where such decree or order for eviction is liable to be re-opened under the proviso to section 3 of the Amending Act of -1976. It is thus clear that in so far as the Delhi Rent Control Act is concerned, a· person against whom an order or decree for eviction has been passed cannot generally, be regarded as tenant. The ques-tion which requires consideration is whether the definition of 'tenant' contained in the Delhi Rent Control Act can be extended to proceed-ings under the Slum Clearance Act, or, in other words, whether the word 'tenant' which occurs in cl.(a) of s. 19(1) of the Slum Clearance Act bears the same meaning which it has under the Delhi Rerit Con-trol Act.

Section 19 of the Slum Clearance Act furnishes intrinsic evidence to show that the definition oflhe word 'tenant' as contained in the Delhi Rent Control Act cannot be extended for construing its provisions. By cl. (b) of s. 19(1) no person can, except with the previous per-mission in writing of the competent authority, execute any decree or order obtained in any suit or proceeding instituted before the amend-ing Act of 1964 for the eviction of "tenant" from any building or land in slum area. Sub-section (2) of s. 19 provides that person desiring to obtain permission of the competent authority shall make an application in the prescribed form. By sub-s. ( 4), the competent authority is required to take into account certain factors while granting or refusing to grant the permis'sion asked for. The first of such factors which is mentioned in cl. (a) of sub-s. (4) is "whether alternative accommodation within the means of the tenant would be available to him· if he were evicted." It is evident that the word 'tenant' is used in s. 19 ( 4) (a) to include person against whom decree or order for eviction has already been passed because, that provision applies as much to the permission sought for executing decree or order of eviction referred to in s. 19 ( 1) (b) as to the institution of suit or proceeding for obtaining decree o;ir order for eviction referred to in s. 19(1) (a). If person against whom decree or order of eviction has been pas'sed is not to be included within the meaning of

!he word 'tenant', s. 19(4)(a) could not have used the language which it uses, namely, whether alternative accommodation within the means of the 'tenant' would be available to him if he were evicted. In the absence of compelling circumstances and in order to better effectuate the object of the Slum Clearance Act, we see no reason why the word 'tenant' should not bear the same meaning in s. 19(1) (a) as in s. 19(4)(a). The rule is well settled that where the same expression is used in the same statute at different places the same meaning ought to be given to that expression, as far as possible. In the instant case the word 'tenant' has been used at more than one place in s. 19 itself and it is only reasonable to construe it in the same sense throughout.The Slum Clearance Act was passed, inter alia, for the protection of tenants in slum areas from eviction. As observed by this Court in Jyoti Parshad v. The Administrator for the Union Territory of Delhi ( [1]), the Slum Clearance Act looks at the problem of eviction of tenants from slum areas not from the point of view of the landlord and his needs but from the point of view of tenants who have no alternative accommodation and who would be stranded in the open if they were evicted. The policy or the Slum Clearance Act being that the slum dweller should not be evicted unless alternative accommoda-tion is available to him, we are of the view that the word 'tenant' which occurs in s. 19(1) (a) must for the purpose of advancing the remedy provided by the statute be construed to include person against whom decree or. order for eviction has been pa'ssed. We might mention that Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Bardu Ram Dhanna Ram v. Ram Chander Khibru(2) has taken the same view, namely, that th1< word 'tenant' in s. 19 of the Slum Clearance Act includes person against whom decree or order of eviction has been passed. Learned counsel for the respondent relied very strongly on decision of this Court in Lakhmi Chand v. Kauran Devi(-[3 ]) in sup-port of his submission that the word 'tenant' must bear the same meaning in the Slum Clearance Act as in the Delhi Rent Control Act. We are unable to appreciate how the judgment in that case supports the contention of the respondent. All that was decided therein was that person against whom an order for eviction is passed cannot be tenant within the meaning of the Delhi Rent Control Act and that the definition of the word 'tenant' as contained in that Act would not be affected by anything contained in s. 19 of the Slum Clearance Act. The question which arose in that case was whether s. 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act barred the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain suit in relation to any premises to which that Act applied, for eviction of 'tenartt' therefrom. Not only that no ques-tion arose in that case as to whether the definition of 'tenant' as con-tained in the Delhi Rent Control Act should be extended to the Slum Clearance Act, but the Court observed expressly that : "No ques-tion as to what the rights of tenant against whom decree in eject-ment has been passed in view of Section 19 of the Slum Areas Act are, arises in this appeal", and that the Court was not concerned in the appeal before it "with any question as to the protection given

~ ·2 AIR 1972 Delhi 3-4 (3) [1966] 2 s.c.R.

(1) (1962) 2 S.C.R. 12~.

by the Slum Areas Act to tenants .... " The ques~oI_t ~ore us !s not whether person against whom decree for ~victlon IS passed is tenant for the purposes of the Delhi Rent Control Act but whether he is tenant for the purposes of. s. 19 of t?e Sh~m Clearance Act. Lakhmi Chand's (supra) case does not deal with this problem at all.

Since .the respondent had not obtained permission .o~ the compe-tent authority for instituting the present suit for obtammg decree for eviction of Lal Chand from building situated in the slum area and since Lal Chand must be held to be tenant for the purposes of s. 19(1) (a) it must follow that the suit is incompetent and cannot be entertained.

The suit is ailso barred under s. 37A of the Slum Clearance Act which reads thus :

"37A. Bar of jurisdiction.-Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no civil court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the competent authority or any other person is empowered by or under this Act, to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act." The competent authority is empowered under s. 19(3) to determine the question whether permission should be granted or refused for instituting suit for obtaining decree or order for the eviction of tenant from any building in slum area. Consequently, no civil court can have jurisdiction in respect of that matter, namely, in respect of the question whether tenant of building in slum area should or should not be permitted to be evicte<l tllerefrom. As result of tlle combined operation of s. 19(3) and s. 37A of the Slum Clearance Act, that jurisdiction is exolusively vested in the compe-tent authority and the jurisdiction in that behalf of civil courts is _expressly taken away. Only one more aspect of the matter needs is to be adverted to. The respondent after obtaining decree for eviction against Lal Chand and his alleged sub tenants applied for permission of the competent autllority to execute that degree. Permission was grant-ed to him to execute the decree in respect only of the two rooms on the second floor and in pursuance of that permission he obtained possession of those two rooms. We are unable to understand how' after working out his remedy under tlle Delhi Rent Control Act as modified by the Slum Clearance Act, it is competent to the respo11-dent to bring fresh suit for evicting the appellants from the pre-mises on the ground floor. The autllorities under the Slum Clearance Act who are exclusively invested with the power to determine whether decree for eviction should be permitted to be executed and, if so, to what extent, had finally decided tllat question, refusing to allow the respondent to execute the decree in resoect of the ground ffrv,r pre-mises. By the present suit, the respondent is once again asking for

the relief which was included in the larger relief sought by him in the application filed under the Slum Clearance Act and which was express-. ly deniCd to him. · 1n the circumstances, the present suit is also barred by the principle of res judicata . . The fact that s. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot apply. on . its terms, the earlier. proceeding before the competent authority not being suit, is no answer to the extension "of the principle underlying that section to the instant case. Section 11, it is long since settled, is not exhaustive and the principle which motivates that section can be extended to cases which do nol fall strictly within the letter of the law. The issues ·involved in the two proceedings are identical, those issues arise as. between the same parties and thirdly, the issue now sought to be raised was decided finally by competent quasi-judicial tribunal. . The principle of res judicata is conceived in the larger public interest which requires that all litigation must, sooner thanJater, come to an end. The principle is also founded "" eouity. iustice art<l rrood conscience which require that party which has once succeeded on an issue should not be permitted to be harassed by multiplicity of proceedings involving determination of the same issue. Were it permissible to bring suits of the present nature, the beneficial jurisdiction conferred on the com-petent authority by the Slum Clearance Act would become illusory and meaningless for, .whether the competent authority grants or refuses permission to execute decree for eviction, it would always be open· to the landlord to enforce the ejectment decree by filing substantative suit for possession .. Verily, the respondent is executing the eviction decree by instalments, now under the garb· of suit. Apart from the fact that the suit is barred on account of principles analogous to res judicata, ·it is plainly in violation of the injunction contained in s. 19 (1 Hb) of the Simµ Clearance Act, if regard is to be had to the sub-stance and not for the form of the proceedings. ·

Lal Chand's widow died after the decision of the second appeal by the High Court and before the filing of this appeal. Learned counsel ... for the respondent wants to utilise that event to highlight his argument that the cause of action cannot survive at least after her death, in view · by the amendment made to s. 2 (I) of the Delhi Rent Control Act by --. Amending Act 18 of 1976. We cannot accept this argument either. ; J The suit filed by the respondent being incompetent and the Civil Court '-I 't. not having jurisdiction to entertain it, the decree passed by it is non-est. The nullity of that decree can be set up at least by Kesho Ram and .j Jhangi Ram who are entitled to defend and protect their possession by invoking the provisions of the Slum Clearance Act.

In . the result we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court ·and direct that the respondent's suit for possession shall stand dismissed. The respondent shall pay to the appellants the costs of" this appeal.

Appeal allowed. -~