VASU @ VASAL VASU Vs. K.V. VARGHESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the revision petitioner. The question that arises is whether the landlord can maintain a subsequent petition for eviction of the tenant, if a previous application which was filed raising the same grounds, was dismissed as not pressed. The short facts are the following:

(2.) The tenant mainly contended that the dismissal of the earlier petition on identical grounds is a bar to maintain the present petition. The bona fide purpose pleaded by the landlord was also resisted. The Rent Controller found that the bona fide need alleged is genuine and the rent is in arrears from November 1995 onwards. It was also found that the tenant is not depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from the business therein and that other suitable buildings are available in the locality for the tenant to carry on business. Therefore, the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act was also found against the tenant. But the eviction petition was dismissed after finding that in view of the dismissal of the earlier petition as not pressed, the eviction petition is not maintainable. This finding was rendered after noticing that Order 23 Rule 1(4) of the C.RC. is applicable to rent control proceedings.

(3.) The landlord filed appeal under Section 18 of the Act which was allowed by the appellate authority. The findings on the grounds for eviction have been confirmed and it was also found that the tenant is not entitled to the protection under the first and second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. Relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in N.R. Narayan Swamy v. Francis Jagan, 2001 AIR(SC) 2469 , it was held that as the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1(4) C.P.C. have no application to proceedings under the Rent Control Act, the dismissal of the earlier petition as not pressed, is not a bar and therefore the eviction petition is maintainable.