forward and no reference is also made to H.R.C.O.P.No.225 of 1979. In fact, in the counter, the only statement is that from the year 1969, the petitioners were trying to evict him and the case was fought upto the High Court. When a defence is taken that an application is not maintainable on the ground of res judicata or bar under Section 19 of the Rent Control Act, it is for the person challenging the maintainability, to substantiate the same. The best evidence in this case is, the eviction and the order dismissing the main petition. Those documents are not filed. Merely because the present petition is also one for own occupation, it does not automatically follow that the cause of action is the same. No evidence has been let in to show what was the averment in the earlier petition and the reasons for dismissing the same. Only if that evidence is before Court, a conclusion can be arrived at whether the petition is barred by res judicata. The matter did not end there. The principle of res judicata has been made applicable even as against the other tenants against whom no application for eviction was filed earlier. Both the Authorities were moved by this contention to hold against the landlord. The said finding, according to me, can only be said as perverse."
