N R NARAYAN SWAMY Vs. B FRANCIS JAGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) It is the say of the appellant that he let out suit premises admeasuring 10 ft. x 8 ft. which is part of his residence to the respondent at the rent of Rs. 200 /- per month. After retiring from service he started practice as an Advocate in a small room admeasuring 8 ft. x 7 ft. in the rear side of the suit premises which is let out to the respondent. He filed H.R.C. No. 2757 of 1992 for bona fide requirement on the ground that his son needed it to start a new business and also for his office purposes as he required access to his chamber by providing a door in the common wall and for keeping library books. The tenant Balraj promised that he would vacate the premises and hand over vacant possession of the premises. Therefore, by memo dated 6th December, 1994 the appellant submitted as under:

(3.) The tenant Balraj died on 3rd February. 1997 and the premises at present is occupied by his son, the respondent herein On 24th August, 1998, appellant filed H.R.C. No. 10292 of 1998 for recovering of possession of the suit premises on the ground that as his practice has picked up, he wanted bigger office as present office premises admeasuring 8 ft. x 7 ft. was not sufficient to accommodate his books as well as clients. In the said suit respondent filed an application under Section l5l, CPC read with Order XXIII, Rule 1(4)(b) contending that as the previous suit was withdrawn, the present suit was not maintainable and was also barred under section 45 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Act'). The appellant submitted written objections contending that the said application was misconceived and the suit was neither barred under Order XXIII nor by principles of res Judicata as enunciated in Section 45 of the Rent Act. Relying upon the decision rendered by this Court in Surajmal vs. Radhe Shyam, (1988) 3 SCC 18, the trial Court by Judgment and order dated 24th July, 1999 rejected the said application.