BHAJAN SINGH Vs. BALDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the instant petition filed by the petitioner-tenant is to judgment dtd. 15/1/2014, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana, in Rent Application No.07 dtd. 18/7/2006, allowing the eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord as also the judgment dtd. 18/1/2017, passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, in Rent Appeal No.2 dtd. 12/2/2014, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner-tenant.

(2.) Sole argument of learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant is that Rent Application No.287 dtd. 14/3/1997, was filed by the respondent-landlord but after commencement of proceedings, he stopped participating in the proceedings, as a result of which, the same was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order Annexure P/2 dtd. 25/2/2004, by passing the following order:-

(3.) Learned Counsel contends that after the dismissal of Rent Application No.287 dtd. 14/3/1997 for non-prosecution vide order Annexure P/2 dtd. 25/2/2004,the respondent-landlord fileda fresh eviction petition No.07 dtd. 18/7/2006, on the same groundsas taken in Rent Application No. 287 dtd. 14/3/1997 and the same was allowed by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana and appeal against the same dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, despite a specific plea having been raised by the petitioner tenant before both the Courts of non-maintainability of the subsequent petition on the same cause of action in view of the bar contained under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC as well as the decisions of this Court in Mehtab Singh, Advocate vs. Shri Tilak Raj Arora and another 1988 (1) RCR (Rent) 159, BhagwanDass (died) through L.Rs. vs. Ramesh Kumar 1999 (2) RCR (Rent) 586, Smt. Biran vs. Gurmukh Singh 1991 (1) RCR (Rent) 95 and Sardari Lal Jain vs. Smt. Dhanwanti Devi 2002 (2) RCR (Rent) 296. Relevant extracts of the aforementioned decisions is reproduced as under:-