PRAMOD Vs. SECRETARY, SULTANPET DIOCESE SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A proximate equal of the issues involved in these Original Petitions may be expressed as "perversions of best things to worst abuses" as Milton limned in Paradise Lost.

(2.) Disquieting is the litigative trend, where a tenant takes the landlord in a law suit seeking protection from forcible eviction - a rhetoric, unaccompanied by a real threat on facts, in many a cases - but without performing his fundamental obligation in law to pay the rent? Is the plaintiff/tenant entitled to an equitable relief of injunction from eviction? Should the suit continue even when the plaintiff/tenant fails to pay the arrears of rent; or whether the same is liable to be aborted by a process known to law? Can pleadings be struck off in such cases as an abuse of the process of the court? Up to what extent, law recognises the tenant's right to continue in the building, without paying the rent, under the guise of a protective order obtained by alleging a threat of forcible eviction? These are a few questions, which surface for consideration in these Original Petitions.

(3.) On facts of O.P.(C) No.1446/2023 afore referred, it could straight away be observed and found that dismissing an application for arrears of rent vide Ext.P17 on the principles of res judicata is not legal and proper. It is relevant to note that Ext.P6 application, originally filed for payment of arrears of rent, was dismissed on a technical ground that the tenanted premises is located in an area, where the Rent Control Act applies, wherefore the landlord should seek remedy under the said Act. Later, it was established - as found in Ext.P18 order - that the tenanted premises is not located in such an area and that the Rent Control Act is not applicable. If that be so, the same constitutes a definite change of circumstance, which warrants consideration of the matter afresh on merits. There was no consideration of the issue on merits, insofar as the claim for deposit of arrears of rent is concerned, so as to make applicable the principles of res judicata as between interim applications of the same suit. Therefore, Ext.P17 order cannot be sustained on the count alone.