BIRAN Vs. GURMUKH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's revision petition seeking to challenge the impugned order of the Appellate Authority, direction her ejectment from the demised premises on the ground that they were bona fide required by the landlord for his personal occupation.

(2.) A reference to the record shows that earlier on September 18, 1934. the landlord had filed a petition for ejectment against the present petitioner on the same ground, namely, personal necessity This petition was dismissed in default on June, 4, 1985. It was thereafter that he filed the present petition for ejectment on March 4, 195-6. Admittedly, the cause of action of this second application is tie same as in the earlier application and further the learned counsel for the respondent landlord was constrained to accept the fact that no charge in circumstances has been pleaded in the present application from that in the earlier one. This being so, the present application is clearly barred under the principles laid down in Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Reference in this behalf may be made to the judgment of the division Bench of oar Court in Mehtab Singh v. Tilak Raj Arora, A. I. R. 1989 Punj. 12, (1988-1) 93 P. L. R. 269, where it was held that the principle that no man can be vexed twice on the same cause of action, is applicable even in proceedings under the Rent Restriction Act, it being founded upon equity, justice and good conscience. There can thus be no escape from the conclusion that the present it petition for ejectment of the tenant on the ground of personal necessary stands barred by dismissal of the earlier one

(3.) THE impugned order of the Appellate Authority cannot therefore, be sustained and is accordingly hereby set aside. This revision petition is thus accepted with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 300/ -.