Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Suresh S/o Late Shri Chandi Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Dhruv Narayan Purohit S/o Late Purohit Swaroop Narayan – Respondent
Order :
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 14.10.2022 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan II, Jaipur by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 11 CPC has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents-landlord filed a suit for eviction under Section 9 of the RAJASTHAN RENT CONTROL ACT , 2001 (for short “the Act of 2001”) on the ground of bonafide necessity, comparative hardship and change of user by the petitioner-tenant. Learned counsel submits that several issues were framed in the earlier round of litigation in the suit submitted by the respondents and finally the suit for eviction was rejected by the court of Civil Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan vide judgment dated 20.10.2018. Learned counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, an appeal was preferred by the respondent-landlord before the Appellate Court, i.e., Additional District Judge No.14 Jaipur Metropolitan, however, the said appeal was also rejected vide judgment dated 24.07.2019 and the cross-objections submitted by the petitioner in the aforesaid appeal were reje
Successive eviction suits may proceed if new genuine grounds arise, as the principle of res judicata does not bar fresh claims based on changing circumstances.
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.
The principle of res judicata disallows parties to litigate the same question again and again, even if the determination may be demonstrated wrong. Once an order attains finality, parties are bound b....
The reasonable and bona fide necessity for rent eviction has to be adjudged based on the position existing on the day the application is filed, and subsequent events may not warrant an amendment in t....
The landlord's bona fide need at the time of filing the suit continues even after the sale of the property to a third party during the pendency of the proceedings.
The principle of res judicata does not apply if a fresh application is filed on changed circumstances, and the earlier petition was not adjudicated upon on merits.
Amendments to pleadings regarding bona fide necessity must be timely and relevant, and subsequent events do not negate the landlord's bona fide need for the premises.
The necessity for eviction must be assessed at the time of the application, and not all subsequent events justify amendments to pleadings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
