TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (3) TMI 401
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, 1965, for eviction of the appellant-tenant. Under the proviso thereto if the tenant denies the title of the landlord or claims right of permanent tenancy, the Rent Controller shall decide whether the denial or claim is bona fide. Recording of such a finding positively in favour of the tenant will require the landlord to sue for eviction of the tenant in a civil court. The Rent Controller had accepted the plea of the tenant to be bona fide and relegated the respondents to seek eviction by a civil suit. Before its initiation, the appellant filed ()A No. 11730 of 1986 before the Land Tribunal under the Kerala Land Reforms Act claiming that the lease was of the agricultural land and as a cultivating tenant, he is entitled to get assignment o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s: , Special provisions relating to leases for commercial or industrial purposes: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or in any other law, or in any contract, or in any order or decree of court, where on any land leased for commercial or industrial purpose, the lessee has constructed buildings for such commercial or industrial purpose, before the 20th May, 1967, he shall not be liable to be evicted from such land, but shall be liable to pay rent under the contract of tenancy, and rent shall be liable to be varied every twelve years. Explanation : For the purposes of this section. - (a) 'lessee' includes a legal representative or an assignee of that lessees; and (b) 'building' ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ords-respondents, the only forum to decide the issue is the Land Tribunal and not the Civil Court and the High Court is not right in its contra conclusion. 9. Sri P.S. Poti, the learned senior counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, raised three fold contentions. First, according to the learned Counsel, the rent control proceedings under Section 11 of the aforesaid Rent Control Act operates as res-judicata since the appellant had the opportunity to plead the right of Section 106, but he failed to do so. In the rent control proceedings, the appellant denied the title driving the landlords to file a suit, which was accepted by the rent controller. Accordingly the landlords laid the suit for eviction. Secondly, the appellant having ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y and substantially in issue in such suit; and no court shall try any such suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue in former suit between the same parties or between the parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised and has been heard and finally decided by such court. Admittedly, in the former proceedings before the Rent Controller, the claim was ejectment of the appellant on the grounds envisaged in Section 11 of the Rent Control Act. The plea of entitlement under Section 106 of the Land Reforms Act was available to the appellant in the eviction proceedings and if it w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion Bench of the High Court in para 9 therein held that it is true that the plea of tenancy under Section 106 of the Act now raised related to the different kind of tenancy; but on the principle contained in Explanation IV to Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code we are inclined to hold that this was a matter which might and ought to have been raised at the time of earlier reference and therefore, the matter does not arise for trial by the Civil Court or the Tribunal. We accept that the statement of law has been correctly decided. It is true that in Abdul rahman v. Abdulla Haji (1991) 1 KLT 702, another Division Bench, without deciding the question of res-judicata since it was not raised, held that the dismissal of an application under Se....