Full disclosure and jurisdictional facts control writ and rent proceedings; prior dismissal without merits did not create res judicata.

High prerogative writ applications require full and fair disclosure of all material jurisdictional facts, and a petition may be defective where it omits the basis for determining standard rent; here, the omission was material but not treated as fraudulent suppression. The Rent Controller's jurisdiction under the Bombay Rents, Hotel Rates and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1944 depended on the statutory rent threshold and on whether the premises had been let as a whole and later in parts; the Controller could decide those jurisdictional facts, and the availability of an appeal did not oust that jurisdiction. An earlier dismissal of a similar application for lack of material did not operate as res judicata, because it was not a merits determination.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petition was liable to fail for want of material facts and suppression in an ex parte application for certiorari or prohibition; (ii) whether the Rent Controller had jurisdiction to entertain the standard-rent application under the Bombay Rents, Hotel Rates and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1944, despite the plea that the rent payable by the occupiers did not exceed the statutory limit and that an appeal was an adequate remedy; (iii) whether the earlier dismissal of a similar application barred the fresh application on principles analogous to res judicata.

Issue (i): whether the petition was liable to fail for want of material facts and suppression in an ex parte application for certiorari or prohibition.

Analysis: In proceedings for high prerogative writs, full and fair disclosure of all material facts is required. The petitioners did not state the essential facts showing what the premises were on the relevant date and what the standard rent of those premises was. A mere assertion that the occupants were paying less than the statutory figure was insufficient, because the jurisdictional inquiry depended on the standard rent of the relevant premises and not merely on the rent charged from the occupants. The defect in the petition was material, though the omission was treated as inadvertent rather than deliberate.

Conclusion: The petition was defective for non-disclosure of material facts, though the omission was not treated as a fraudulent suppression.

Issue (ii): whether the Rent Controller had jurisdiction to entertain the standard-rent application under the Bombay Rents, Hotel Rates and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1944, despite the plea that the rent payable by the occupiers did not exceed the statutory limit and that an appeal was an adequate remedy.

Analysis: The statutory scheme vested jurisdiction where the standard rent of the premises exceeded the prescribed limit and where the case fell within the situations described in the Act, including premises let as a whole and later in parts. On the applicants' case, the larger premises had been let as a whole at a rent above the threshold and had later been subdivided, bringing the matter within the Controller's jurisdiction. The Controller was competent to determine the jurisdictional facts, including whether the premises had been let as a whole and later in parts, and whether a person in occupation was a tenant or merely a licensee. The existence of an appellate remedy did not, on these facts, oust the Court's power to examine jurisdiction, but the objection that the Controller lacked jurisdiction was rejected.

Conclusion: The Rent Controller had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application, and the plea based on the availability of an appeal failed.

Issue (iii): whether the earlier dismissal of a similar application barred the fresh application on principles analogous to res judicata.

Analysis: The earlier application had not been decided on the merits; it had been declined because the Controller had insufficient material before him. Such a dismissal did not operate as res judicata. In any event, whether an issue is res judicata is itself a matter falling within the tribunal's jurisdiction to decide, and an erroneous decision on that question does not destroy jurisdiction. The proper remedy, if any, was by appeal after final determination.

Conclusion: The plea of res judicata failed and did not oust the Controller's jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The petitioners failed to establish any jurisdictional infirmity or legal bar to the proceedings before the Controller, and the writ petition was rightly dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: In a writ petition challenging a statutory tribunal, the petitioner must plead all material jurisdictional facts with full and fair disclosure, and an erroneous decision on a question such as res judicata does not itself oust the tribunal's jurisdiction where the tribunal is otherwise competent to decide the matter.

---