The court established that a second eviction application is permissible if the first was not decided on merits, emphasizing the need for a practical approach to bona fide requirements.

Order

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant challenging the order dated 30.01.2019 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as the Rent Tribunal) whereby the application filed on behalf of the petitioner-tenant under Order 14 rule 2 CPC read with Section 21 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act of 2001) was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that in the first round of litigation, husband of the respondent-landlord filed an eviction application before the Rent Tribunal on the ground of bonafide need and personal necessity as well as for revision of rent.

3. During pendency of the said eviction application, the respondent-landlord's husband Shri Manak Chand Rawat expired and in the said eviction application issue No.1 was with regard to bonafide need and personal necessity, however, due to death of respondent-landlord's husband, the issue No.1 was decided against the landlord.

4. Thereafter, the respondent-landlord again filed an eviction application in the year 2014 against the tenant on the ground of her bonafide need and personal necessity. During pendency fo the said eviction application, the tenant filed an application for framing of additional issues which was allowed by the Rent Tribunal and two additional issues were framed by the Rent Tribunal with regard to bar of filing the present eviction application in view of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC as well as with regard to maintainability of the eviction application with regard to principles of res judicata.

5. Thereafter, the tenant filed another application for deciding the issues No. 4 and 5 on priority basis. The said application was dismissed by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 29.04.2019 and hence the present writ petition has been filed.

6. Counsel for the petitioner-tenant submits that the respondent-landlord was added as legal representative in place of her husband in the earlier eviction application filed on behalf of her husband.

7. Counsel further submits that earlier eviction application was dismissed on the same grounds with regard to bonafide need and personal necessity and once the said issue of bonafide need and personal necessity has been decided against the respondent-landlord, the respondent-landlord is estopped to file the present eviction application and hence the same is barred by the principles of res judicata.

8. In support of his contentions, counsel for the petitioner-tenant placed reliance upon the judgment passed in the matter of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Abdul Rahman Vs. Prasony bai & Anr., reported in (2003) Supreme Court Cases 488 in para 21 helds as under:-

"21. For the purpose of disposal of the suit on the admitted facts, particularly when the suit can be disposed of on preliminary issues, no particular procedure was required to be followed by the High Court. In terms of Order 14 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a Civil Court can dispose of a suit on preliminary issues. It is neither in doubt nor in dispute that the issues of res judicata and/constructive res judicata as also the maintainability of the suit can be adjudicated upon as preliminary issues. Such issues, in fact, when facts are admitted, ordinarily should be decided as preliminary issues."

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Siddalingamma & Anr. Vs. Mamtha Shenoy, reported in AIR 2001 Supreme Court 2896 in para 9 helds as under:-

"9. Rent Control Legislation generally leans in favour of tenant, it is only the provision for seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement of landlord for his own occupation of use of the tenanted accommodation which treats the landlord with some sympathy. In Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta (1999) 6 SCC 222 this Court had held that a bona fide requirement must be an outcome of a sincere, honest desire in contra-distinction with a mere pretext for evicting the tenant on the part of the landl