- (1.) The petitioner company is a sales organisation and the sale selling agent of the products of M/s. Jay Engineering Works Ltd. for the whole of India with the exception of West Bengal. On 14th January, 1972, the respondent No. 2 filed a suit against the petitioner and the Bench sales Manager of Bareilly Branch in the Court of Munsif City, Bareilly for the eviction of the petitioner from the premises in dispute. The suit was filed purely on the allegations that the tenancy of the petitioner has been terminated under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. No other ground for eviction was mentioned in the plaint. On 12th May, 1972 the petitioner filed a written statement considering the respondent's suit. On 16th July, 1972, the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 came into force. In view of Section 39 of the said Act, the petitioner deposited the entire rent due along with interest in the trial Court on 10th of August, 1972. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 filed an application for the amendment of the plaint. The petitioner's contention is that this amendment application was moved beyond the period of 60 days prescribed thereof. By virtue of this amendment application, the respondent No. 2 sought ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that he has sublet the premises in question to Sri S.K. Gupta, respondent No. 3. This application was allowed by the Judge, Small Causes, Bareilly vide his judgment and order dated 22nd February, 1973. Aggrieved thereby, a revision was filed in the Court of District Judge, Bareilly by the petitioner, which was dismissed on 21st April, 1974. No further steps were taken by the petitioner to challenge this revisional order. Thereafter, additional written statement was filed to the amended plaint. Evidence was led in the case. On 3rd September, 1973, the Judge, Small Causes Court, Bareilly, dismissed the suit of respondent No. 2. The ground on which the suit was that on the date when the suit had been filed, the premises in question had not been sublet to Sri S.K. Gupta and that the cause of action had arisen subsequent to the institution of the suit, and as such was not maintainable. It was further held by the Judge, Small Causes Court that the petitioner company not being a natural person, the provisions of Section 12 of the Act were not attracted to the facts of the present case. On these findings, it was finally held that no case of subletting had been proved. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, a revision was filed before the District Judge, Bareilly which has been allowed on 9th October, 1974. The Revisional Court was of the opinion that the plaint could be amended by the plaintiff even though the cause of action had arisen after the institution of the suit and after the deposit of the money under Section 39 of the Act. The Additional District Judge further held that on the basis of the agreement between the company and respondent and respondent No. 3 the case of subletting had been proved within the meaning of Section 12(1)(b) of the aforesaid Act. The plaintiff's suit was, therefore, decreed. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) It appears that subsequent to the amendment of this writ petition, the petitioner, by way of abundant caution, also filed Civil Revision No. 336 of 1975 against the impugned order of the Additional District Judge dated 9th October, 1974. This Revision was admitted and connected with the present writ petition No. 2318 of 1974 by the order of this Court dated 30th July, 1975. As such this writ petition as well as the Civil Revision are being disposed of by this Common judgment.
(3.) I have heard the counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents on the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under Section 43(2)(h), an application for amendment has to be made within 60 days from the commencement of the U.P. Urban Building Regulation of Letting of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. In the instant case, the application has been made beyond that period. The petitioner's counsel has also submitted that the agreement in question which is Annexure 5 on the record was entered into between the parties on 30th August, 1972. This could not be made the basis of the cause of action as accrued to the plaintiff on the date of the institution of the suit. In other words, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only those causes of action can be considered which have accrued on the day when the original suit was instituted in the Court of Munsif. On these two grounds, it is argued that the petitioner should be non-suited. As I have mentioned above, this question was agitated before the Judge, Small Causes Court. These contentions were repelled by him. A revision was filed by the petitioner before District Judge. That revision was dismissed. No other steps were taken by the petitioner to challenge the order by the District Judge in revision. The petitioner acquired to this order. This order has now become final between the parties in so far as the above noted questions are concerned, it has been held by the Supreme Court in Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Smt. Deorajin Debi, 1960 AIR(SC) 941 that : "The principle of res-judicata applies also as between two stages in the same litigation to this extent that a Court, whether the trial Court or a higher Court having at an earlier stage decided a matter in one way will not allow the parties to reagitate the matter again at a subsequent stage of the same proceedings.";