Constructive res judicata in landlord-tenant disputes bars reopening title and supports eviction where tenancy was previously found.

An earlier competent-court finding that the vendor owned the property, the sale to the plaintiff was valid, and the defendant occupied the premises as a tenant bound the parties in later eviction proceedings. The defendant could not reopen title or assert that the property was joint family property, because any defence that might and ought to have been raised earlier was barred by constructive res judicata. With ownership and tenancy already established, the landlord-tenant relationship continued after purchase, and the defendant's denial of title and non-payment of rent supported eviction under the applicable rent control law. The decree for possession was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the earlier finding that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property and the defendant was a tenant operated as res judicata and constructive res judicata in the subsequent eviction suit; (ii) whether the plaintiff was entitled to possession and eviction of the defendant from the suit premises.

Issue (i): whether the earlier finding that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property and the defendant was a tenant operated as res judicata and constructive res judicata in the subsequent eviction suit.

Analysis: The earlier civil proceedings had conclusively determined that the property was self-acquired property of the vendor, that the sale in favour of the plaintiff was valid, and that the defendant was occupying the premises as a tenant on payment of rent. Those findings were rendered by a competent court between the same parties and were directly relevant to the status of the property and the defendant's possession. The defendant could not, in the later suit, re-agitate the question of title or set up a contrary claim that the property was joint family property. Any defence that he might and ought to have taken in the former suit was barred by the doctrine of constructive res judicata.

Conclusion: The earlier findings operated as res judicata and constructive res judicata against the defendant.

Issue (ii): whether the plaintiff was entitled to possession and eviction of the defendant from the suit premises.

Analysis: Once the plaintiff's ownership stood established and the defendant was bound by the earlier finding of tenancy, the landlord-tenant relationship continued against the plaintiff after the purchase. The defendant's denial of the plaintiff's title, non-payment of rent, and the plaintiff's pleaded need for possession furnished lawful grounds for eviction under the applicable rent control law. The trial court's decree for possession was supported by the evidence and the earlier adjudication, and the appellate courts erred in disturbing it.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to a decree for possession and eviction.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the judgments of the lower appellate court and the High Court were set aside, and the decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A finding on title and tenancy recorded by a competent court in earlier litigation between the same parties binds them in later proceedings, and any defence which might and ought to have been raised earlier is barred by constructive res judicata.

---