The cause of action for subsequent suits can be different from the cause of action for previous suits, as long as the ultimate relief claimed is the same.

Arun Bhansali, J.

These revision petitions are directed against orders dated 09.09.2016 passed by the Additional Sr. Civil Judge No.4, Bikaner ('the trial court'), whereby the applications filed by the petitioner under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC in two suits have been rejected. The respondents filed suits for possession after terminating the tenancy of the petitioner by giving notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ('the Act').

2. Where after, the petitioner filed applications under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, inter alia, contending that the suit was barred by law, inasmuch as, in a previous suit filed by the plaintiff/predecessor in interest already a decree had been passed by the trial court for eviction on 12.01.2006 and an appeal against the same was pending before the Court of District Judge, Bikaner ('the first appellate court'), wherein stay of the decree has been granted by the first appellate court.

3. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the fact that already proceedings for eviction qua the suits' property was pending against the petitioner before the competent court, the present proceedings on allegedly a fresh cause of action again for the same purpose for seeking possession of the premises could not be maintained by the plaintiffs and, therefore, the plaints were liable to be rejected.

4. Further submissions were made that the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 ('the Act of 1950) was repealed by the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act of 2001'), which came into force on 01.04.2003, when the suit was pending and, therefore, if the plaintiffs had any cause, the same should have been added in the pending suit and suits filed subsequent to the passing of the decree by the trial court cannot be maintained.

5. Submissions were also sought to be made questioning the transfer of part of the leased premises in favour of C.R. Build Con. Pvt. Ltd.

6. The application was resisted by the plaintiffs. It was submitted that the cause of action, on which the suits in question were filed is different and, therefore, the same cannot be said to be barred by law.

7. The trial court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC was not maintained as the suit was filed on a different cause of action and, consequently, rejected the application.

8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that the earlier suit was filed under provisions of the Act of 1950 on the ground of material alteration, bonafide requirement and default in payment of rent, which suit came to be decreed by the trial court by its judgment and decree dated 12.01.2006.

9. The plaintiffs where after, on account of change in law, issued a notices dated 13.05.2012 under Section 106 of the Act and after service of the notice, filed suits on 03.07.2012.

10. Apparently, the cause of action in filing the previous suit and subsequent suit are totally different, while the previous suit was filed under the Act of 1950, where the plaintiff-landlord was required to make out a ground for eviction as envisaged under the provisions of Section 13 of the Act of 1950, however, with the repeal of the Act of 1950, and the fact that the Act of 2001 was not applied to Nokha, the proceedings as required by the Act were initiated, whereby the tenancy of the petitioner was terminated and the suits were filed seeking possession, thus the cause of action is totally different. Merely because the ultimate relief claimed in both the suits and the appeal pending before the first appellate court are same, it cannot be said that the subsequent proceedings initiated by the plaintiffs were not maintainable.

11. This Court in the case of Om Prakash Khadaria v. Navratan Mal & Ors, (2013) 2 WLC(Raj) 503, relying on judgment in the case of National Institute of Men