JUDGMENT
V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed by Chaman Lal petitioner directed against the order of the learned Rent Controller, Fereozepur, dated 10.8.1978 and of the Appellate Authority, Ferozepur, dated 4.10.1980.The learned Rent Controller had dismissed the petition for eviction and the said order was maintained by the Appellate Authority.
2. The sole surviving ground pressed during the course of arguments was as to if the property in question has been sublet by respondent N. 1 to respondent No. 2? It was asserted that respondent No 1 is a tenant in the property.He has sublet the same ie.e 9/10th portion to Ajit Singh respondent No. 2 without the consent in writing of the petitioner.Respondent No. 2 was stated to be in exclusive possession of that portion of the demised property.
3. The petition for eviction was contested.It was pointed out that the property has been taken on rent from a worship.However, as per respondent No. 1, he had taken the demised property for carrying on the business jointly with his father and brothers.They are still carrying on the said business jointly.Earlier, a partition for eviction was filed by the petitioner on the same ground which was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on 31.7.1964.On the same ground, second petition for eviction was stated to be not maintainable.
4. The learned Rent Controller framed the issues and recorded the evidence. He concluded that respondent No. I had taken the property on react and had been carrying on the business jointly with his brother respondent No. 2. Both the respondent were carrying on the business jointly and thus the question of subletting did not arise.
5. The petitioner preferred appeal.The reasoning of the learned Rent Controller found favour with the learned Appellate Authority.Aggrieved by the same, present eviction petition has been filed.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that dismissal of the earlier petition for eviction on the ground of subletting is not a bar for filing of the subsequent petition for eviction because there was subsequent act which showed that the property had been sublet.He strongly relied upon the fact that there are two electric meters, one in the name of respondent No. 1 and the other in the name of respondent No 2 and that before the Municipal Committee it has been admitted that only 1/10th portion is with respondent No.1 and the rest is with respondent No. 2.
7. In the peculiar facts of the present revision petition, the said contention cannot be lieved.A bird’s eye view of the evidence on the record would make the position clear.Kewal Krishan is a Clerk from the Municipal Committee who stated that a notice was issued to respondent No. 1 for payment of house tax. Bachittar Singh, respondent NO. 1, had sen reply copy of which is Exhibit a-2 and it has been found that 1/10th portion of the property was with respondent No. 1 and the rest with respondent No. 2. Similarly, Ajit Singh, AW2, an employee of the Pubjab State Electricity Board, testified that there are two electric meters, one in the name of respondent No. 1 and the second in the name of respondent No.2. It further transpired int he evidence of Gurcharan Singh, AW3, that Ajit Singh respondent No. 2 was running Saw Mill at Talwandi Bhai in the demised premises under the name and Style of M/s. Bhan Singh and Sons.
8. Both the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority returned a finding of the fact that the respondents were carrying on the business jointly and the question of subletting does not arise.
9. In the present case, respondents has produced a copy of the order dated 31.7.1964 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ferozepur, in the earlier eviction application.It reveals that earlier also the petitioner has filed eviction application against the respondents on the ground of subletting.It was held by the learned Rent Controller that the respondents were running the business jointly in partnership with each other and a third person.The said decision, indeed, would operate as res judicata. The learned Appellate Authority rightly observed that the principle of res judicata is not confined to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.The learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority may be creation of the statue.Code of Civil Procedure amy not strictly be applicable but they do have the trappings of the Civil Court.If the issues are substantially the same then, though not strictly, by the analogy on the principles of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Rent Controller is competent to adjudicate that subsequent petition is not maintainable.
10. In the present case in hand, there is no subsequent event to reveal that there is any further act to show that the property after the decision of the Rent Controller in the year 1964 has further been sublet.It has only been pointed out that Bachittar Singh had admitted that respondent No.2 is in possession of 9/10 portion of the property. No opportunity was given to respondent No. 1 to explain the alleged admission. To avoid the payment of house tax, a plea only had been taken.It was exempted for the payment of the said tax. As regards two electric meters, this contention was available and evidence also produced in the earlier petition that was filed which was rejected. This fact cannot be reagitated.
11. The result would be that it cannot be held that the property is shown to have been sublet by respondent No. 1 to his brother respondent No. 2. There is, thus, no ground to set aside the finds for the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority.
12. The revision petition as a result of the reasoning given above must fail and is accordingly dismissed.
13. Revision dismissed.