City Civil Court lacks jurisdiction in eviction suit despite Rent Controller's decisions; jurisdiction not conferred by res judicata.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the City Civil Court lacked jurisdiction in an eviction suit, despite the Rent Controller's previous rejection of eviction petitions. The appellant's argument that the Rent Controller's decisions constituted res judicata on jurisdiction was rejected, as jurisdiction is a pure question of law and cannot be conferred through res judicata principles. The appeal was dismissed with no costs.

---

---

Issues involved:
Jurisdiction of City Civil Court vs. Rent Controller's jurisdiction in eviction suit.

Summary:

The appellant filed a suit for recovery of possession of the premises and mesne profits against the respondent in the City Civil Court. The respondent objected to the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, claiming it fell under the Rent Controller's exclusive jurisdiction due to the A.P. Rent Control Act. The Rent Controller had earlier rejected eviction petitions by the appellant. The Assistant Judge of the City Civil Court held that the respondent could not take inconsistent jurisdiction pleas and decreed the suit in favor of the appellant. The Additional Chief Judge and the High Court upheld this decision, stating that the City Civil Court lacked jurisdiction. The appellant argued that the Rent Controller's previous decisions constituted res judicata on jurisdiction, citing a Supreme Court case. However, the Supreme Court held that a court without jurisdiction cannot be conferred jurisdiction through res judicata principles, as jurisdiction is a pure question of law. Therefore, the High Court's decision on jurisdiction was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed with no costs.

---