The Court

Having reviewed the documents, and having heard the arguments and the report read out by the Judge-Rapporteur, and after the deliberations and uponthe satisfaction of the formal requirementsofthe appeal;
The facts – as revealed by the appealed judgment and other documents – may be summed up as follows:
The Respondents brought the claim No.355/2008 – lease – against the Appellant, applying for an eviction order regarding the estate leased to the Appellant at the industrial area due to expiry of the contract period and their need. TheRespondents stated that their predecessor leased a void land to the Appellant at the industrial area under a contract which terminated on 2.4.2003.The Court of Appeal decided on 29.3.2006, regarding appeals No. 375/2005, 387/2005, and 438/2005, by finding the existence of a new lease contract starting from 2.4.2003 between the Appellant and the Respondents for a rent of 10,000 Riyals. Accordingly, they notified the Appellant of the termination of the contract as of January 2008. However, the Appellant continued in occupation of the estate, which prompted the Respondents to bring their claim. The court dismissed the claim,whereafter the Respondents lodged an appeal No. 355/2008. On 29.12.2008 the court quashed the appealed judgment, and decided that the contract dated 2.4.2003 and referred to in judgments No. 375/2005 and 387/2005 – appeal - has terminated, and that the Appellant be evicted from the leased estate. The Appellant appealed by way of cassation, and the appeal was presented before this Court at the deliberations chamber, and ahearingsession was fixed for its consideration.
Whereas the appeal was based on two reasons:
First, the Appellant contends that the appealed judgment misapplied the law by ruling that the lease contract has terminated and ordering the eviction of the estate, on the grounds that the lease period is determined by the period specified for the payment of rent on a monthly basis, as decided by the judgment issued in relation to appeals No. 365/2005 and No. 387/2005. Additionally, the lease contract included an agreement between the parties that the rent shall be paid annually, thereby expressing their intention to limit the right to its termination to the lessee, considering the continuation of his activity conducted therein, and the constructions and appliances fixedtherein. This renders the appealed judgment defective and necessitatesan appeal by cassation.
And whereas the aforesaid contention is inappropriate, due to the issuance of a judgment having res judicata status on the establishment or denial of a right in a previous claim based on an elementary matter, such judgment obtains exclusivity on amatterbetween the same parties to the suit, thereby precluding them from disputing the same matter through a claim or defence pleading regarding any other right the establishment of which depends on the establishment or denial of the same basic matter previously decided regarding the same parties; regardless of the settlement by such decision being implicitly or explicitly included in the finding, or in the reasoning that is closely connected to such finding. A review of the minutes of the combined appeal statements Nos. 375/2005, 387/2005 and 438/2005 clearly reveals that they were brought as appeals against the judgment issued in the civil claim No. 1243/2003 brought by the Respondents, applying for eviction of the Appellant from the disputed estate due to the termination of the contract period. The judgment decided the eviction of the lessee from the leased estate. Upon appeal by the parties as per the aforesaid three appeals, the court on 29.3.2006 quashed the appealed judgment and found the existence of a new lease contract as of 2.4.2003 between the Respondents and the Appellant, at a monthly rental of 10,000 Riyals. The judgment reasons included that “It is incontestable that the lease contract dated 30.1.1404 AH has terminated upon expiry of its period on 2.4.2003, whereby it no longer served as a basis for a continued use by the lessee of the estate …”; and that “the promise to let becomes a full-fledged lease between the successors of the original lessor and the lessee for a monthly rent of 10,000 Riyals. The lease period for this new contract becomes the period specified for the payment of the rent …” Accordingly, such judgment shall acquireres judicata status in this connection, accompanied by the validity of its outcome, that the contract period has been determined as the period specified for monthly payment of the rent. Since the current claim has been captured by      Law No. 4 of 2008 on the Leasing of Real Estates, which excluded State-owned, public and private property from its scope of application, thereby falling outside the ambit of its legal provisions, and since the decision on the appealed judgment holding the termination of the lease contract dated 2.4.2003, as stated in the judgments No. 375/2005 and 387/2005 – appeal – and the eviction of the Appellant from the leased estate, has been in accord with proper law; the contention against such judgmentfor the aforesaid reasons becomes groundless.
Second,the Appellantcontends against the appealed judgment that its reasoning was misdirected. TheAppellant contends that the said judgment failed to consider the amount of compensation deserved for the constructions made on the leased estate, the damage sustained as a result of having to halt his activities due to the eviction, and his loss of customers. Accordingly, such judgment becomes defective and worthy of appeal by cassation.
The aforesaid contention is incorrect, since it is established jurisprudence of this Court that the judge, based on the supremacy of the parties to the suit over the facts of the dispute, shall observe the scope of the claim presented before him by the parties, the cause of action and subject-matter, and shall not exceed its generaljurisdiction by issuing a judgment for or against a person who is not properly represented, nor exceed itsspecific jurisdiction by altering thecause of action or otherwise delivering a judgment on something which is not applied for by the parties, or delivering a judgment that exceeds their applications. This is because the judge’s settlement of matters beyond the aforesaid scope is tantamount to settlement of matters not included in the claim.
Therefore, and whereas the scope of the claim has been defined by the applications of the Respondents for a judgment terminating the lease contract and eviction from the leased estate, without this being reciprocated by an application for compensation by the Appellant due to the said eviction, thereby negating any cause for entertaining the same in the appeal. Since the jurisprudence of the appealed judgment corresponds to this viewpoint, it shall then be in accord with proper law, and any contention against such judgment, based on the aforesaid, shall be groundless.