IMPORTANT POINT
Res Judicata – Successive suit is not barred, if fresh grounds have arisen to file the same and filing successive suit does not amount to res judicata.

ORDER

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 rejected vide judgment dated 24.09.2019, hence the original judgment dated 20.10.2018 has attained finality.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now a successive suit with the same pleadings on the ground of bonafide necessity, alternative accommodation and non-user has been submitted by the respondents against the petitioner for ejecting him from the subject premises. Learned counsel submits that once the dispute between the parties has been decided by the Civil Judge in the earlier round of litigation vide judgment dated 20.10.2018, the successive suit filed by the respondents is barred by the principles of res judicata and the same is hit by Section 11 CPC and is not maintainable and liable to be rejected and that is why an application in this regard under Section 11 CPC was submitted. However, the same was rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 14.10.2022, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that in the earlier round of litigation, i.e., the suit submitted by the respondents against the petitioner, the ground taken by the respondents for filing the suit was bonafide necessity on account of need to run a saree shop, but on account of long pendency of the earlier suit, the need was changed and now a fresh need arises with the respondents for operating the business of tours and travels, hence, on the ground of fresh bonafide need and necessity, the successive suit was filed along-with two other fresh grounds, i.e., alternative accommodation available with the petitioner and non-user of the subject shop by the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that all these facts and pleadings were appreciated by the Tribunal, while rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner vide impugned order dated 14.10.2022, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.

5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

(1) Surajmal Versus Radheyshyam reported in 1988 (3) SCC 18;

(2) N.R. Narayan Swamy Versus B. Francis Jagan reported in 2001 (6) SCC 473; and

(3) Ratni Devi Versus LRs of Kishan Kanwar & Others reported in 2014(1) WLN 433.

6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.

7. Perusal of the record as well as the impugned order dated 14.10.2022 reveals that, on earlier occasion, the suit for eviction was filed by the respondents against the petitioner on several grounds including bonafide need and necessity. This fact is not in dispute that the earlier suit submitted by the petitioner was rejected vide judgment dated 20.10.2018. This fact is