K.N. Goyal, J. - (1.) THIS is tenants' writ petition arising out of proceedings under Section 21 of U.P. Act XIII of 1972. The landlord was opposite party No. 2 who filed a consolidated application under Section 21 against two sets of tenants. One being the Petitioners and the other being opposite parties 3 and 4, in respect of different premises. The application under Section 21 was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority as barred by res judicata on the ground that a similar application had been dismissed earlier, and that dismissal had been upheld on appeal on 20 -9 -1975, vide judgment, annexure 1. The appellate court, however, took the view that in accordance with the relevant rules a fresh application under Section 21 can always be filed after the expiry of six months from the dismissal of the earlier application. As such the questions of the need and comparative hardship can be agitated afresh. Aggrieved by this decision of the appellate court, the Petitioners have come to this Court under Article 226 of the constitution.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Sri S.K. Srivastava, fairly concedes that the questions of need and comparative hardship can be reagitated in an application given more than six months after the dismissal of the earlier application. His contention, however, is that in the earlier proceedings an alleged private partition of 1973 between three owners of the building had been found to be sham, and that the said finding should operate as res judicata. Although Section 11, Code of Civil Procedure, does not apply, in terms, to proceedings under U.P. Act XIII of 1972, the principle of res judicata as a general principle of finality of judgments should govern these proceedings as well. This is also supported by the decision of Sita Ram Gandhi v. IV Additional District Judge, 1983 ARC 782, delivered by Hon'ble K.C. Agarwal, J. with whom I respectfully agree.
(3.) THE Appellant court has, however, not said anything on this question.;