MOHAN SINGH Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord is in revision against the order of the Appellate Authority, reversing the order of the Rent Controller by which the eviction petition was allowed on the ground of personal necessity. In brief, the undisputed facts are that the petitioner filed the eviction petition on the ground of non payment of arrears of rent and personal necessity. The present case pertains to the petition filed in the year 2003. The petition was allowed and eviction was ordered on the ground of personal necessity. However, it is also not in dispute that the petitioner had also filed another eviction petition on the ground of non payment of arrears of rent and personal necessity in the year 2008. In that petition, issue No. 2 was categorically framed as to whether demised premises was required by the petitioner for his bonafide necessity? The burden was upon the petitioner to prove the issue but he did not choose to lead any evidence to prove bonafide necessity and the eviction petition was dismissed on 19.1.2011. The Appellate Authority in the present case held that the findings recorded in the petition filed in the year 2008 would operate as res judicata insofar as issue of personal necessity in the present case is concerned while relying upon the decision of this Court in Bhagwan Dass (died) through LRs v. Ramesh Kumar, 1999 4 RCR(Civ) 640.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petition filed in the year 2008 was dismissed for lack of evidence and was not decided on merits. Therefore, findings recorded on issue No. 1 cannot operate as res judicata. He has relied upon judgment of Bombay High Court in Kaikhosrou (Chick) Kavasji Framji of Indian Inhabitant & Another v. The Union of India and another, 2010 2 RCR(Rent) 447.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has reiterated his stand while relying upon decision of this Court in Bhagwan Dass (died) through LRs .