ORDER

1. This revision is preferred against the order dated 3.7.2020 passed in Case No.0002A/90(7)/ 2019-20 by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Betul whereby the application preferred by the respondent under section 23 E has been allowed and the applicant herein Shankar Bhosle has been directed to pay rent of the suit accommodation for a period of 36 months i.e. Rs.43,200/- and he shall also handover the vacant possession of the suit accommodation to the respondent Damji Pawar.

2. Previously, the respondent had filed an application under section 23 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, which was dismissed, thereafter again he filed an application under section 23 A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act claiming that he is the owner of the land bearing Khasra No. 287/2 area 0.66 hectare in which the present appellant is still residing as his tenant since long from the time of his father. In october, 1973, the father of the present appellant had taken the house on rent at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month. Time to time rent was increased upto Rs. 1200/- per month. In the year 1984, the father of the respondent died still father of the present appellant paid monthly rent to the respondent. Till, April, 2017, the appellant paid monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per month to the respondent. The suit house was required for bonafide need because in his family, there are so many members. The respondent is an old aged person suffering from various diseases. The suit house is suitable for him. Thus prayer is made for eviction of the appellant from the house and also for arrears of rent from April, 2017.

3. In the subsequent case, the right of the appellant to defend the case has been closed by the trial Court. By the impugned order, the trial Court passed the decree for eviction of the appellant and directed to pay arrears of rent Rs.43,200/- to the respondent.

4. This revision has been filed by the appellant on the ground that the impugned order is barred by res judicata as the matter was already decided on 30.4.2019. Order dated 30.4.2019 was not challenged before any forum. The impugned order and decree is barred by res judicata, thus fresh suit is not maintainable. There was no landlord tenant relationship established in the case. No rent was paid to the respondent any time, hence impugned order and decree is liable to be set aside.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance in the case of K.S. Sundararaju v. M.R. Ramachandra Naidu reported in AIR 1994 SC 2129 and Kachree Pd. Sharma v. Anand Kishore Gupta reported in 1995 MPLJ Note 37 and contended that under the Rent Control Act for the eviction on the basis of bonafide requirement of the landlord, subsequent case is not barred by res judicata.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that relationship of the appellant and the respondent of landlord and tenant has not been established. The earlier order has not been challenged by the respondent, hence subseuqent case is barred by res judicata.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. It is not a case where bonafide needs was pleaded for different time, hence the principal laid down in case of K.S. Sundararaju Chettiar (supra), is not applicable in this case. In the case of Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta reported in (2010) 10 SCC 141, the Supreme Court has observed as under :-

''The object of Order 2 rule 2 CPC is twofold. First is to ensure that no defendant is sued and vexed twice in regard to the same cause of action. Second is to prevent a plaintiff from splitting of claims and remedies based on the same cause of action. The effect of Order 2 rule 2 CPC is to bar a plaintiff who had earlier claimed certain remedies in regard to a cause of action, from filing a second suit in regard to other reliefs based on the same cause of action. It does not however bar a second suit based on a dif