A petition can only be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC on specific grounds; a subsequent rent petition is not barred by res judicata if it claims rent for a new period.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Gurbir Singh, J.

Challenge in the present revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 19.09.2023 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Court of learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, whereby the application under Section 14 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity the Rent Act) read with Order 7, Rule 11 CPC (Annexure P-1), filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed.

2. The facts in brief, as culled out from the paper book, are that the respondents filed a rent petition for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant wherein respondent no.1 is landlady and respondent no.2 is constituted Attorney of respondent no.1 as per General Power of Attorney (Annexure P-5).

3. On appearance before the Court, the petitioner-tenant moved application under the Rent Act (Annexure P-1) on the ground that prior to the filing of the present rent petition, respondent no.2 Manjit Singh earlier filed the rent petition titled as Manjit Singh v. Parveen , which was dismissed vide order dated 22.11.2019 and appeal filed by respondent no.2 against the said order is also pending before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. The instant rent petition has been drafted in such a manner for creating illusion of cause of action in order to create a fresh cause of action for filing the present petition. In the earlier rent petition, respondent no.2 produced Attorney of respondent no.1 but in spite of that, he could not succeed in that rent petition. In the same manner, the instant rent petition has been filed on the basis of Attorney, having no power to file the rent petition against the petitioner. So, if the averments in the petition be read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, it becomes apparent and clear that the present rent petition lacks cause of action and the same deserves to be out-rightly dismissed.

4. The respondents contested the application and filed reply, wherein it has been stated that the earlier rent petition was filed on the ground of non-payment of rent which was due up to the year 2016 and even thereafter, the rent was continuously accruing. In the instant rent petition, the rent has been claimed from 30.11.2022 and on-wards. In the earlier petition, only Manjit Singh was the petitioner whereas in the instant rent petition, Jagdeep Kaur and Manjit Singh - both are the petitioners. Appeal against the judgment passed in the earlier rent petition is pending adjudication. It was further submitted in the reply that Pritam Kaur Sekhon (since deceased) inducted the petitioner as tenant in the demised premises during her life-time and unfortunately she died on 21.12.2009. Thereafter, the demised premises has been transferred in the name of her daughter Jagdeep Kaur - respondent no.1 vide transfer letter.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the earlier petition filed by respondent no.2 Manjit Singh has already been dismissed and appeal against the said dismissal is pending adjudication. So, the subsequent petition is not maintainable. Moreover, Manjit Singh has filed the petition on the basis of General Power of Attorney (Annexure P-5), but in the said document, it is not mentioned that he was authorized to file the rent petition. It has further been argued that the said Power of Attorney was required to be registered, otherwise the same cannot be taken into consideration. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on a judgm