Kotak Ltd. v. Vallabdas Kooverji, Civ. App. 15-D-68, 12/7/68, Georges C. J.

Kotak Ltd. v. Vallabdas Kooverji, Civ. App. 15-D-68, 12/7/68, Georges C. J.

An order was made by consent granting respondent landlords possession of premises occupied by appellant company, conditioned upon payment of compensation. Before the order was carried out, the Rent Restriction Act was amended, bringing the land under rent control legislation for the first time. Under that legislation, an order for possession could only be obtained if a number of specific grounds were established. Section 19(5), as amended, gave power to the court to suspend or stay the execution of any unexcuted order under certain conditions. Appellant company claimed for rescission of the order for possession; this claim was for rescission of the order for possession; this claim was dismissed by the Resident Magistrate on the ground that

Section 19(5) was not retrospective. The case was unsuccessfully appealed. The company then filed an identical claim before a second Resident Magistrate which was dismissed.

            Held: (1) The second claim was res judicata. Even if the doctrine only applied where there had been a ruling on the merits, a court’s decision that the law provides no remedy is equivalent to deciding the merits of the case. (2) Section 19(5) is retrospective in the sense that it gives the court power to review orders made before the amendment; but successive applications can only be made where the fact situation has changed, and that does not appear here.