Could you please humanize this document for me? F - Facts The case involves an appeal by the tenant, Mrs. Brown, against the landlord, Southall Realty Co., concerning an action for possession due to nonpayment of rent. It is stipulated that Mrs. Brown owed $230.00 in rent arrears. Mrs. Brown argued that the lease was illegal and, therefore, no rent was due. The lower court ruled in favor of the landlord, granting possession for nonpayment of rent. At the time of the appeal, Mrs. Brown had vacated the property but wished to appeal to avoid the res judicata effect on any future claims for rent. P - Issue The primary legal issue is whether the lease was valid and if the judgment for possession based on nonpayment of rent would establish that Mrs. Brown is indeed liable for the rent, despite her claim that the lease was illegal. I - Rule The legal principle drawn from previous cases (such as Bess v. David) is that if a court has already decided on the issue of tenancy and the existence of a lease in a possessory action, such issues are considered res judicata in subsequent claims. This means that any judgments made in prior related cases prevent re-litigating those issues in future cases between the same parties. R - Application The court applied the principle of res judicata to Mrs. Brown's appeal, noting that the determination on the legality of the lease made in the lower court was binding