The principle of res judicata applies at the interlocutory stage of a proceeding if similar prayers are being made at a subsequent stage of a proceeding when admittedly such prayer has been rejected by the Court upon consideration of the materials on record.

Sahidullah Munshi, J.

1. This revisional application is directed against Order dated 4th March, 2016 and order dated 2nd May, 2016, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sealdah, in Ejectment Case No.5 of 2010. Defendant is a petitioner before this Court. Plaintiffs/opposite parties filed a suit being Ejectment Suit No.107 of 2007 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sealdah. On transfer before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), additional Court, the suit was re-numbered as Ejectment Case No.5 of 2010. The said suit was filed on the grounds of reasonable requirement, default and building and re-building. After entering appearance in the suit the defendant filed his written statement. Plaintiff filed their list of documents with the plaint. The defendant also filed its list of documents relied upon by it in the suit. In the said suit the plaintiffs filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of plaint. The plaint was allowed to be amended vide order dated 18th September, 2015. The plaintiffs filed their amended plaint on 1st October, 2015 and the defendant filed his additional written statement on 4th January, 2016.

2. The plaintiffs have stated in paragraph 15 of their plaint about the reasonable requirement of the flat tenanted of the defendant for their own use and occupation. It has been stated that the plaintiffs are in need of space for their own residence as also for setting up their business in the suit premises. At present, the plaintiffs and their family accommodated in a licensed flat at 4th floor of premises no.18, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata – 700020 which is not sufficient for the family and that apart, plaintiff maintains a godown in a rented accommodation in room no.26 measuring about 500 sq.ft. and maintained their office in similar rented accommodation at room no.71 at premises no.209, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. In paragraph 16 the plaintiff has stated that due to shortage of plaintiff’s present accommodation at 18 and 18/1, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata – 700020, the plaintiff no.4 has been compelled to take one rented accommodation being flat no.1, E.C. 1st floor at premises no.5/1/1B, Dr. R.K. Mukherjee Sarani, Kolkata – 700019 and the plaintiff no.4, in spite of his financial hardship, is being compelled to pay Rs.44,000/- (Rupees Forty Four Thousand) only, as monthly rent for his tenanted accommodation. The plaintiff no.4 wants to shift his family in their own premises after suitable arrangement in the building afresh and for which the plaintiffs required the entire building at 57, Shakespeare Sarani, which is the suit premises.

3. In answer to the averments made in paragraph 16 of the amended plaint filed by the plaintiff, the defendant has said that plaintiff’s requirement is not reasonable and it has said that the plaintiffs own several residential and commercial premises and one of such properties owned by the wife of plaintiff no.4 is the famous Bagri Market at Canning Street, Kolkata – 700001 which contains hundreds of residential flats and hundreds of commercial offices and shops. It has been alleged by the defendant that accommodation at premises no.5/1/1B, Dr. R.K. Mukherjee Sarani, Kolkata – 700019, has been acquired by the plaintiff no.4 and his wife during the pendency of the suit while most part of the suit premises at 57, Theatre Road, is lying vacant. It has been stated that the plaintiff no.4 has purchased the aforesaid 5/1/1B, Dr. R.K. Mukherjee Sarani premises in the name of his reliable person and the said plaintiff no.4 produced himself as tenant under him for the purpose of misleading and showing exclusive requirement for the purpose of the suit. It has been stated that accommodation in plenty is available at the suit premises but, even then the plaintiffs have filed the suit for ejectment for reasonable requirement. The requirements of the plaintiff have been denied by the defendant. F