Supreme Court clarifies the application of res judicata in eviction cases: Prem Kishore & Ors. vs. Brahm Prakash & Ors. (29 March 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 29 March 2023

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. and J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Can a landlord file a second eviction suit if the first one was dismissed because they failed to prove they were actually the landlord? The Supreme Court of India recently tackled this question, clarifying when the principle of res judicata (a legal rule preventing re-litigation of decided issues) applies in eviction cases under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. This judgment clarifies the circumstances under which a second eviction petition can be considered valid.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property in Delhi where the respondents were tenants. The appellants claimed that the respondents were inducted as tenants on 27 December 1987 by their father, paying a monthly rent of Rs. 1050. The appellants stated that the rent was paid until February 1993. A demand notice was sent on 4 March 1996, claiming arrears of Rs. 27,800, which was not paid. Consequently, the appellants’ father filed an eviction petition on 21 May 1996, under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, for non-payment of rent.

In the first eviction petition, the respondents denied the landlord-tenant relationship. The appellants failed to present evidence to prove this relationship, despite multiple opportunities given by the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition on 27 January 1998, due to the appellants’ failure to establish the landlord-tenant relationship. No appeal was filed against this order.

After the death of the original plaintiff (the appellants’ father), the appellants filed a second eviction petition on 18 May 2001, claiming rent arrears from 1 March 1993. The respondents argued that the second petition was barred by res judicata, as the landlord-tenant relationship was not established in the first petition. The Additional Rent Controller rejected this argument, but the High Court of Delhi reversed this decision, stating the second petition was indeed barred by res judicata.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Rent Controller dismissed the first eviction petition on 27 January 1998, because the appellants failed to provide evidence of the landlord-tenant relationship. The Additional Rent Controller initially declined to reject the second eviction petition, stating that it was based on a fresh notice and cause of action and that there was no finding on merits regarding the landlord-tenant relationship in the first order. However, the High Court of Delhi reversed this decision on 4 May 2010, holding that the second eviction petition was barred by the principle of res judicata. The High Court reasoned that the dismissal of the first petition due to the failure to produce evidence was a decision on merits under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), and therefore, the issue could not be re-litigated.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions:

• Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: This section allows a landlord to seek eviction of a tenant if the tenant has not paid the due rent.
• Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC): This rule specifies the grounds for rejecting a plaint. Specifically, clause (d) states that a plaint can be rejected if the suit appears to be barred by any law. The provision reads as follows:
  
  “11. Rejection of plaint .— The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: —
  
  (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
  
  (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
  
  (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp -paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
  
  (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;
  
  (e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
  
  (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9:
  
  Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp -paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature for correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp -paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.”
• Section 11 of the CPC: This section defines the principle of res judicata, which prevents the re-litigation of issues that have been decided in a previous suit. The provision reads as follows:
  
  “11. Res judicata .—No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.”
• Order 17 Rules 2 and 3 of the CPC: These rules deal with the procedure when parties fail to appear or produce evidence. Rule 2 deals with situations where parties fail to appear, and Rule 3 deals with situations where parties fail to produce evidence.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the High Court erred in holding that the second eviction petition was barred by res judicata. They contended that the issue of res judicata is a mixed question of law and fact, which cannot be decided solely based on the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC.
• They argued that the first order of the Rent Controller was not a decision on merits under Order 17 Rule 3 of the CPC, because the Rent Controller did not make a finding on the landlord-tenant relationship, but rather dismissed the case due to lack of evidence.
• The appellants submitted that the plaint of the second eviction petition did not contain any averment that would indicate that the petition was barred by any law.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the High Court was correct in holding that the second eviction petition was barred by res judicata. They contended that the first eviction petition was dismissed because the appellants failed to establish the landlord-tenant relationship, despite sufficient opportunities.
• The respondents submitted that the order of the Rent Controller in the first eviction petition was a decision on merits under Order 17 Rule 3 of the CPC, as the appellants failed to produce evidence, and therefore, the issue could not be re-litigated.
• The respondents relied on various judgments, including Union of India v. Nanak Singh, Satyadhyan Ghosal & Ors. v. Smt. Deorajin Devi & Anr., Har Dayal v. Ram Ghulam, Nila v. Punun, Govindoss Krishnadoss v. Rajah of Karvetnagar & Anr., Om Prakash Gupta v. Rattan Singh, and Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh v. State of Gujarat, to support their arguments.

Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the plaint of the eviction petition on the ground that the second eviction petition was barred by the principles of res judicata.
2. Whether the first suit i.e. the Eviction Petition No. 149 of 1996 filed by late Samey Singh was dismissed on merits.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

On Res Judicata and Order 7 Rule 11 CPC:

• V. Rajeshwari v. T.C. Saravanabava, (2004) 1 SCC 551 (Supreme Court) – Discussed the need to examine pleadings, issues, and judgments of previous suits to determine res judicata.
• Kamala & others v. K.T. Eshwara Sa, (2008) 12 SCC 661 (Supreme Court) – Clarified that Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC has limited application and that the court should not consider any evidence or enter into a disputed question of fact or law at that stage.
• Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust, (2012) 8 SCC 706 (Supreme Court) – Reiterated that the court must look into the averments in the plaint when considering Order 7 Rule 11.
• Soumitra Kumar Sen v. Shyamal Kumar Sen, (2018) 5 SCC 644 (Supreme Court) – Held that the defense in the written statement cannot be considered while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11.
• Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat, (2021) 9 SCC 99 (Supreme Court) – Summarized the guiding principles for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC.

On Order 17 Rules 2 and 3 of CPC:

• B. Janakiramaiah Chetty v. A.K. Parthasarthi & Ors., (2003) 5 SCC 641 (Supreme Court) – Explained the scope of Order 17 Rules 2 and 3 of the CPC.
• Prativadi Bhayankaram Pichamma v. K. Sreeramulu, AIR 1918 Mad 143 (FB) (Madras High Court) – Held that Rules 2 and 3 of Order XVII of the Code of Civil Procedure are mutually exclusive.
• Mariannissa v. Ramkalpa Gor sin, ILR 34 Cal 235 (Calcutta High Court) – Held that the existence of material is necessary for the application of Section 158 (corresponding to Rule 3 of Order XVII).
• Gopi Kishan v. Ramu, AIR 1964 Raj 147 (Rajasthan High Court) – Discussed the application of Rules 2 and 3 of Order 17 and clarified that the existence of material does not necessarily mean existence of evidence.
• Shidramappa Irappa Shivangi v. Basalingappa Kushnapa Kumbhar, AIR 1943 Bom 321 (Bombay High Court) – Discussed the appearance of parties and the role of pleaders.
• Prakash Chander Manchanda v. Janki Manchanda, (1986) 4 SCC 699 (Supreme Court) – Clarified that the court has discretion to proceed under Rule 3 even in the absence of evidence, but such discretion is limited.
• R. Ravindran v. M. Rajamanickam, 2006 SCC Online Mad 169 (Madras High Court) – Discussed the interpretation of Order 17 Rules 2 and 3.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Procedural Correctness: The Court emphasized that the High Court erred in applying Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC because the issue of res judicata is a mixed question of law and fact, requiring a detailed examination of the previous suit’s pleadings, issues, and judgment, which is beyond the scope of Order 7 Rule 11(d).
• Interpretation of Order 17 Rule 3: The Court clarified that the first eviction petition was not dismissed on merits under Order 17 Rule 3 of the CPC. The Rent Controller’s order was a dismissal for lack of evidence, not a substantive ruling on the landlord-tenant relationship.
• Importance of Evidence: The Court stressed that the dismissal of the first petition was due to the landlord’s failure to provide evidence to establish the landlord-tenant relationship. The court noted that the order did not purport to be a final disposal of the suit, but merely stopped the proceedings.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal interpretations and procedural correctness, with a lesser emphasis on the specific factual aspects of the case.

Logical Reasoning

Issue 1: Was the High Court correct in rejecting the plaint based on res judicata?

Issue 2: Was the first eviction petition dismissed on merits?

Key Takeaways

• Res Judicata and Order 7 Rule 11(d): The Supreme Court clarified that the issue of res judicata cannot be decided solely based on the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC. It requires a detailed examination of the pleadings, issues, and judgment of the previous suit.
• Order 17 Rule 3: The Court held that a dismissal for lack of evidence is not a decision on merits under Order 17 Rule 3 of the CPC. The Court emphasized that the first eviction petition was dismissed due to the plaintiff’s failure to produce evidence of the landlord-tenant relationship, not based on a substantive finding on the issue.
• Implications for Eviction Cases: Landlords who have had their eviction petitions dismissed for failure to prove the landlord-tenant relationship are not necessarily barred from filing a second petition. The second petition will be maintainable if it is not barred by res judicata.
• “The order did not purport to be one of dismissal for default or on merits and it cannot be taken to mean other than what it purported to be. It is in ordinary phraseology; not legal phraseology and it cannot be divested of its ordinary meaning. Its ordinary meaning is that the proceeding was closed and the suit would not count as a pending one. The later description would be redundant if the order was one of final disposal of the suit.”
• “The power conferred on Courts under Rule 3 of Order 17 of the CPC to decide the suit on the merits for the default of a party is a drastic power which seriously restricts the remedy of the unsuccessful party for redress. It has to be used only sparingly in exceptional cases.”
• “To reject a plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by any law, only the averments in the plaint will have to be referred to; The defence made by the defendant in the suit must not be considered while deciding the merits of the application.”

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and revived the suit. The Court clarified that its judgment does not prevent the defendants from requesting the Court to decide the issue of res judicata as a preliminary issue. The Court also stated that it has not expressed any opinion on the rival contentions regarding the applicability of res judicata or any other contentious issue in the pending suit.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not Applicable in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a dismissal of a suit due to the plaintiff’s failure to produce evidence is not a decision on merits under Order 17 Rule 3 of the CPC. The Court clarified that the issue of res judicata cannot be decided solely based on the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC. The judgment clarifies that a previous dismissal of an eviction petition due to lack of evidence does not necessarily bar a subsequent eviction petition on the same grounds. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the court has clarified the application of the existing law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Prem Kishore & Ors. vs. Brahm Prakash & Ors. clarifies the application of res judicata in eviction cases. The Court held that a second eviction petition is not automatically barred by res judicata if the first petition was dismissed due to the landlord’s failure to prove the landlord-tenant relationship. The Court emphasized that such a dismissal is not a decision on merits under Order 17 Rule 3 of the CPC, and the issue of res judicata cannot be decided solely based on the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC. This judgment provides important clarity for landlords and tenants regarding the process of eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.