RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Govind Mathur, J.
Ratni Devi - Appellant
Versus
LRs of Kishan Kanwar & Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10152 of 2012.
Decided On : 4-09-2013
EVICTION - AVAILABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION - RAJASTHAN RENT CONTROL ACT, 2001 - SECTION 13(1)(e) - Availability of alternative accommodation is a valid ground for eviction under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001. The landlord is not barred from seeking eviction on the ground of availability of alternative accommodation even if an earlier suit for eviction on the ground of bonafide and reasonable necessity was dismissed for want of prosecution.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant, challenged the judgment of the Appellate Rent Tribunal affirming the eviction order passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal. The landlord had filed an application for eviction on the ground of availability of alternative accommodation. The petitioner argued that the earlier suit for eviction on the ground of bonafide and reasonable necessity was dismissed for want of prosecution and therefore the principle of res judicata barred the landlord from agitating the same cause under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the earlier suit was based on the ground of bonafide and reasonable necessity whereas the present application was based on the ground of availability of alternative accommodation. The court also held that the landlord was not barred by the principle of res judicata from seeking eviction on the ground of availability of alternative accommodation.
Issues: 1. Whether the principle of res judicata barred the landlord from seeking eviction on the ground of availability of alternative accommodation. 2. Whether the petitioner had adequate alternative accommodation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The principle of res judicata does not bar a subsequent suit or application based on a different cause of action. In the present case, the earlier suit was based on the ground of bonafide and reasonable necessity whereas the present application was based on the ground of availability of alternative accommodation. Therefore, the principle of res judicata did not bar the landlord from seeking eviction on the ground of availability of alternative accommodation. 2. The court found that the petitioner had three adequate accommodations to reside in and that she was contesting the eviction proceedings only to retain the rented premises.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition.
"18- vc ge fook/kd la[;k&3 ij fopkj djrs gSa] ftlds rgr izR;FkhZ&izkFkhZ dk ;g dFku jgk fd vizkfFkZ;k & ihykfFkZ;k dks oSfdfYid ifjlj miyC/k gks pqdk gSA bl dze esa izR;FkhZ&izkFkhZ dk ;kfpdk ,oa lk{; esa ;g dFku jgk gS fd vizkfFkZ;k & vihykfFkZ;k ds LoxhZ; ifr xtkuan us viuk jgoklh; edku IyksV la[;k 90 vej uxj esa cuk fy;k gS vkSj mlesa os jgokl Hkh dj jgs gSA blh izdkj vizkfFkZ;k & vizkfFkZ;k & vihykfFkZ;k ds uke dk ,d Hkw[kaM la[;k 92 vej uxj esa gS vkSj ml ij jgoklh; edku cuk fy;k gS ,oa vizkfFkZ;k & vihykfFkZ;k dks ,d edku jktLFkku vkoklu e.My }kjk vkcafVr fd;k x;k gS vkSj mlesa jgokl 'kq: dj fn;kA
19- vizkfFkZ;k & vihykfFkZ;k us vius vfHkopuksa o lk{;k esa Hkw[k.M la[;k&90 vej uxj vius ifr xtkuan ds uke gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gS vkSj ;g dFku fd;k gS fd mDr Hwk[k.M vizkfFkZ;k & vihykfFkZ;k ds ifr us fnukad 19-11-2002 dks olh;r ds tfj;s vius iq= dSyk'k o egs'k rFk iq=o/kq Jhefr 'kksHkk o ikS= gjh'k ,oa 'kqHke dks olh;r dj fn;k vkSj os fuokl dj jgs gSA blh izdkj Hkw[k.M la[;k & 92 dks vizkfFkZ;k & vihykfFkZ;k us vius uke ls gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gS] ysfdu ;g crk;k gS fd vius ifr ds bykt gsrq :i;ksa dh
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.