TMI Blog1970 (2) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The Civil Judge rejected the application holding that the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, did not apply to open land let for constructing buildings for residence, education, business, trade or storage. This order was confirmed on September 28, 1955, by a single Judge of the Bombay High Court in a group of revision applications -: Mrs. Dossibai N. B. Jeejeebhoy v. Hingoo Manohar Missar : Nos. 233 to 242 of 1955. But in Vinayak Gopal Limaye v. Laxman Kashinath Athavale(I.L.R. [1956] Bom. 827.) the High Court of Bombay held that the question whether s. 6(1) of the Act applies to any particular lease must be determined on its terms and a building lease in respect of an open plot is not excluded from s. 6(1) of the Act solely because open land may be used for residence or educational purposes only after a structure is built thereon. Relying upon this judgment, the appellant filed a fresh petition in the Court of the Small Causes, Bombay, for an order determining the standard rent of the premises. The application was filed in the Court of Small Causes because the area in which the la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision, Borivli, decided the application between the parties to the present proceeding for determination of standard rent in respect of the same piece of land let for construction of buildings for residential or business purposes. The High Court has held that a decision of a competent Court may operate as res judicata in respect of not only an issue of fact, but mixed issues of law and fact, and even abstract questions of law. It was also assumed by the High Court that a decision relating to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain or not to entertain a proceeding is binding and conclusive between these parties in respect of the same question in a later proceeding. But the doctrine of res judicata belongs to the domain of procedure : it cannot be exalted to the status of a legislative direction between the parties so as to determine the question relating to the interpretation of enactment affecting the jurisdiction of a Court finally between them, even though no question of fact or mixed question of law and fact and relating to the right in dispute between the parties has been determined thereby. A decision of a competent Court on a matter in issue may be res judicata in anothe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the other hand Aikman, J., in Chandi Prasad v. Maharaja Mahendra Mahendra Singh(I.L.R. 23 All. 5.) held that a decision on a question of law is always res judicata. But as observed by Rankin, C.J., in Tarini Charan Bhattacharjee v. Kedar Nath Haldar(I.L.R. 56 Cal. 723.) : Questions of law are of all kinds and cannot be dealt with as though they were all the same. Questions of procedure, questions affecting jurisdiction, questions of limitation, may all be questions of law. In such questions the rights of parties are not the only matter for consideration. We may analyse the illustrative cases retating to questions of law, decisions on which may be deemed res judicata in subsequent proceeding. In Bindeshwari Charan Singh v. Bageshwari Charan Singh(L.R. 63 I.A. 53.) the Judicial Committee held that a decision of a court in a previous suit between the same parties that s. 12A of the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act 6 of 1876 which renders void a transaction to which it applies was inapplicable, was Yes judicata. In that case the owner of an impartable estate, after his estate was released from management, executed a maintenance grant in favour of his minor son B, but wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt, or of procedure, or a pure question of law unrelated to the right of the parties to a previous suit, is not res judicata in the subsequent suit. Rankin, observed in Tarini Charan Bhattacharjee's case(I.L.R. 56 Cal. 723.) : The object of the doctrine of res judicata is not to fasten upon parties special principles of law as applicable to them inter se, but to ascertain their rights and the facts upon which these rights directly and substantially depend; and to prevent this ascertainment from becoming nugatory by precluding the parties from reopening or recontesting that which has 'been finally decided. A question relating to the jurisdiction of a Court cannot be deemed to have been finally determined by an erroneous decision of the Court. If by an erroneous interpretation of the statute the Court holds that it has no jurisdiction, the question would not, in our judgment, operate as res judicata. Similarly by an erroneous decision if the Court assumes jurisdiction which it does. not possess under the statute, the question cannot operate as res judicata bet- 83 6 ween the same parties, whether the cause of action in the subsequent litigation is the same or othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
