Court rules defendant must pay rent arrears, current rent. Prior decision on res judicata upheld.

The court held that the previous decision operated as res judicata, establishing the defendant as a tenant under one of the plaintiffs. It found the defendant to be a defaulter and ordered payment of arrears and current rent. The court emphasized that withdrawing a suit with liberty to sue afresh renders previous findings inapplicable, leading to the rejection of the plaintiff's argument. The defendant's application was dismissed, with no costs awarded, as the issue of default was not challenged, and the court ruled there was no question of res judicata in this case.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the previous decision operates as res judicata.
2. Whether the defendant is a defaulter.
3. Effect of withdrawal of the previous suit with liberty to sue afresh.

Analysis:
1. The tenant-defendant filed an application under Section 17 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, while the plaintiff-landlords objected, claiming a previous decision established the defendant as a tenant under one of the plaintiffs. The court found the previous decision remained unchallenged and operated as res judicata, rejecting the plaintiff's argument that the suit was withdrawn with liberty to sue afresh, thus not binding as res judicata.

2. The court determined that the defendant was a defaulter from October 1973 and ordered the defendant to clear arrears by a specified date and pay current rent promptly. The defendant, dissatisfied with this ruling, filed a revisional application challenging the decision.

3. The defendant's advocate cited a relevant case to support the argument that a previous finding on the relationship between parties in a suit for ejectment remains final and conclusive for subsequent applications. The court considered the effect of withdrawal of the previous suit with liberty to sue afresh, emphasizing that such withdrawal leaves parties in their pre-suit positions and renders the previous findings inapplicable to the present suit.

4. The court further analyzed the legal implications of withdrawing a suit with liberty to sue afresh, emphasizing that in the eyes of the law, the withdrawn suit ceases to exist, and parties revert to their pre-suit positions. The court held that the previous findings did not affect the present suit, concluding that there was no question of res judicata in this case.

5. The court dismissed the defendant's application, noting that the issue of default was not challenged, and therefore, the defendant's contention could not be sustained. The application was ultimately rejected, with no order as to costs issued.

---