Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The defendant is in revision petition aggrieved against the order of ejectment passed by the Appellate Authority under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 on the ground that the petitioner has not paid arrears of rent. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the demise premises have been vacated on 19.4.2001 and prior to vacation of the premises, rent payable has been adjusted against the fertilizer delivered to the landlord. However, it has been found that the possession has been taken by the landlord through the execution of the warrants of possession on 24.8.2005 and that the tenant unilaterally adjusted the arrears of rent against the sale consideration of the fertilizer. 3. The fact remains that the petitioner is not in possession of the disputed property. The dispute is regarding the liability of payment of rent. It has been held by the Full Bench of this Court in the judgment reported as Amar Singh and Anr. v. Dalip (1981) 83 P.L.R. 649 that the findings recorded by the Court of the limited jurisdiction do not operate as res judicata in subsequent civil suit. 4. In view of the said judgment, the apprehension expressed by the petitioner that the findings recorded by the authority under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 would create liability of rent on the petitioner, is a misconception. 5. Consequently, I do not find any ground to interfere in the order warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 6. Dismissed in limine.