TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 892X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3) of Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Act'), is not barred by Section 15 of the Act, can be permitted to be re-agitated in proceeding arising from the order passed by the Rent Controller pursuant to the order of remand. 3. The appellants are the tenants of the petition schedule building of which the respondent is the landlord. In the first round of litigation between the parties for eviction of the appellants from the schedule building, it was held that the requirement of the son of the respondent was bona fide but eventually the order of eviction could not be passed on the ground that no alternative accommodation was available for the appellants in the locality. The responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. In that view of the matter, the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed by the High Court on July 6, 2002. The order of the High Court is appealed against before this Court, by special leave. 4. Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, contends that the order passed by the Appellate Authority holding that the eviction petition was maintainable and that Section 15 of the Act was not a bar, does not operate as res judicata. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel relies upon a judgment of this Court in Satyadhyan Ghosal and Ors. v. Smt. Deorajin Debi and Anr. [1960]3SCR590 . 5. We have perused that judgment. It is laid down therein that an interlocutory order which did not terminate the proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom disputing its correctness. Here what is sought to be re-agitated is not really the order of remand but the order deciding a germane issue which was allowed to become final at an earlier stage of the same suit. The principle of res judicata applies as between two stages in the same litigation so that if an issue has been decided at an earlier stage against a party it cannot be allowed to be re-agitated by him at a subsequent stage in the same suit or proceedings. This position is laid down in Hope Plantations Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board, Peermade and Anr. (1999)5SCC590 , to which one of us (Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.) was a party. 7. In the light of the above discussion we hold that as the question whether Section 15 of the Act bars t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
