Order In this second appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree by which he has been held liable for payment of Rs. 82,209/- to the respondent. 2. The appellant's case" is that he was the tenant in the house of the respondent and has himself vacated the house. After vacating the house, the landlord (plaintiff) claimed arrears of Rs. 82,209/- as rent. Earlier he had approached the House Rent Controller in H.R.C. Case No. 11 of 1999. By the final order dated 28.2.200/ the House Rent Controller fixed @ Rs. 2,000/- per month payable with effect from the date of filing of the application, i.e. 16.6.1999. Against the said order of the House Rent Controller, the appellant had preferred appeal. The said appeal was allowed in part modifying the order of House Rent Controller fixing rent @ Rs. 2.75 paise per square feet, which comes to Rs. 1668.29 paise. The landlord (plaintiff) thereafter, had not taken any step for realization of the amount. He subsequently filed Money Suit No. 3 of 2005 in the Court of Munsif-I, Dhanbad. The appellant appeared and contested the Suit. In the written statement, the appellant had pleaded that the Suit is not maintainable as there was no more relationship of the landlord and tenant. The defendant is not liable to pay as he has already vacated the suit premises. The" order of House Rent Controller was passed while the eviction suit was pending against the defendants. But the landlord-plaintiff has not brought the said facts before the court and did not file any application for payment of arrears of rent. The plaintiff, thus, cannot claim the said amount by filing the subsequent suit. 3. Learned Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties has framed several issues. An specific issue No. 5 was as under:- Is the plaintiff entitled to realize total arrear rent amounting to Rs. 82,209/- with pendente lite interest @ 12% p.a. thereon? 4. Both the parties adduced their evidences. Learned Trial Court, after due discussion and consideration, arrived at the conclusion that the defendant is liable to pay the said arrears of rent at the rate which was determined by the Rent Controller. The learned court below, thus, decreed the suit. 5. The appellant then preferred Money Appeal before the Court of District Judge, Dhanbad which was registered as Money Appeal No. 3 of 2007. The learned court below, thus, decreed the suit. 5. The appellant then preferred Money Appeal before the Court of District Judge, Dhanbad which was registered as Money Appeal No. 3 of 2007. The respondent appeared and contested the appeal. 6. Learned appellate court heard the parties in detail and independently considered all the issues separately. Learned appellate court after discussion and consideration of the evidences on record came to the finding that the House Rent Controller is the competent authority to determine the fair rent and the appellant, being the tenant, is liable for payment of the difference of arrears of rent. Learned lower appellate court concluded that the plaintiff is entitled to realize the said amount of Rs. 82,209/- claimed by him with interest and upheld the judgment and decree of the learned trial court. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the judgment and decree are vitiated on account of the errors committed by the learned court below in not properly appreciating the provisions of Explanation-8 .to Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code Inasmuch as the learned court below failed to take into consideration that the order of the House Rent Controller was executable under the provisions under Section 23 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred as the said Act). It has been stated that once the issue regarding payment of fAir rent was decided by the Rent Controller, the Suit relating to realization of the same is barred by res judicata in view of the provisions of Explanation-8 to Section 11 of C.P.C. The order is also not executable through a civil suit. The specific provision is provided under Section 23 of the said Act. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent referred to and relied on a decision of this Court Amal Kumar Ghosh vs. Ramdas & Sons & Ors. [ 2005(4) JCR 321 ] [: 2005(4) JLJR 678 ] and submitted that the appellant has taken the said point for the first time in this second appeal. This point of res judicata has never been taken at any stage earlier, nor the said point of res judicata is relevant for the purpose of instant case. The Rent Controller has independent jurisdictions for determining the fair rent. This point of res judicata has never been taken at any stage earlier, nor the said point of res judicata is relevant for the purpose of instant case. The Rent Controller has independent jurisdictions for determining the fair rent. When the rent was determined, the same was payable by the appellant but the arrears of difference of amount, after determination, was not paid by the appellant. The appellant, thereafter, vacated the suit premises. In that view, the respondent had no option, but to file the Money Suit for realization of the arrears of amount. 9. I have heard the learned counsel and thoroughly gone through the judgment and decrees of the learned courts below. It is evident from the judgments of the learned courts below that the point of application of Section 11, Explanation-8 was never taken or pressed before the learned courts below. The point of res judicata is mixed point at iaw and fact. The same cannot be raised for the first time at the second appellate stage. A point which has not been taken at the earlier stage cannot also be said to be a point of substantial question of law. The judgment and decree of both the courts are well discussed and considered. The appellant even admits that fair rent was determined and on the basis thereof the arrears was calculated. Hence, the amount is admitted. 10. I, therefore, find no illegality or error in the impugned judgments and decrees of the courts below giving rise to any substantial question of law to be framed and decided, in view of the concurrent findings and facts of the courts below that the appellant is liable to pay the said arrears which is admitted. 11. I, therefore, find no merit in this case. The second appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. I.A, No. 1752 of 2008 12. In view of the orders passed in the second appeal, this I.A. becomes infructuous and is, accordingly, rejected.