- (1.) The landlord is in revision against the dismissal of the petition for eviction complaining of the reasoning adopted by the trial Court as inappropriate. This was in the context of the landlord's plea that the tenant had bound himself to pay the rent at Rs. 1,100/- per month through a rent note called as "licencenama", dated 15.06.1980 executed for a term of 11 months. The tenant denied that there was any such instrument to which he was a party. The landlord responded to this plea by pointing out to the previous proceedings when he had filed a suit before the Civil Court for declaration that the tenant was only a licensee in the eye of law through the instrument dated 15.06.1980 and he was not entitled to any right as lessee/tenant. The decision of the trial Court which decreed the suit was reversed in appeal by the District Court on a reasoning that the document spelt only a lease arrangement and that the suit for declaration that it was a licence was not tenable. Accordingly, plaintiffs/landlords' suit was dismissed. The landlord relied on the finding rendered by the District Judge taking the instrument dated 15.06.1980 as established.
(2.) The tenant would still have an answer to the contention of the landlord that when the document had been found to be true, he could not be said to be an aggrieved party when the suit resulted in a decree of dismissal and it shall, therefore, be open to him to contend in an action where the truth and validity of the document itself was not put in issue. This contention, I may immediately state as well founded for a judgment on an issue which is direct and substantial in a former case could constitute a res judicata only if a person, who is aggrieved by the decision, had allowed it to become final. The suit of the plaintiff which was dismissed cannot be said to be a decision which had become final as far as an adversary is concerned, if the plaintiff could take no benefit for the relief obtained in a suit through the said judgment. Consequently, if the landlord was contending that the tenant was not in possession as a tenant but as a licensee and the Civil Court dismissed the landlord's action, the tenant could not be said to be aggrieved to seek for a challenge to the finding regarding the validity of the document. The finding on whether a document constituted a lease or licence was on the premise that the document was genuine. The issue of whether the tenant's contention could be accepted regarding the validity was purely incidental. The trial Court further reasoned that in order that an earlier adjudication was final as against a tenant, the pleadings of the parties and the issues must have been produced but the landlord did neither. Even a copy of the trial Court judgment was not available and the Court had observed that it was not possible from the judgment of the appellate Court to even find whether there was an adjudication regarding the proof and genuineness of the instrument and whether there was an issue framed at the trial Court to render it conclusive against the tenant. This again is significant, for, a plea of res judicata or a finality on an issue ought to be always entered only when parties filed the pleadings, judgment and the issues which are involved in the case. If the Lower Appellate Court had held so in this case, I will not find anything amiss in its reasoning.
(3.) The case would require to be examined whether the document on the basis of which the landlord was asking for a rent at Rs. 1,100/- could be sustained or not. At the time when the landlord gave evidence, he produced only a certified copy of the documents said to have been filed in the Civil Court in the earlier proceedings and a certification obtained from the Civil Court of the original institution. When a petition had been filed for production of certified copy by the tenant as being secondary evidence, the landlord appears to have taken steps to summon the original file from the Civil Court. The original has been shown to a witness who claimed to be attestor of the instrument but the document was still not exhibited as evidence. The document could have been to be exhibited as evidence through the said witness but however it was still not done and the landlord persisted with the certified copy that he had produced. The original purports to contain a recital for payment of rent at Rs. 1,100/- per month and was required under the relevant State amendment of the Stamp Act to be affixed with the stamps of a particular value but admittedly the original had been written on an un-stamped paper.;