SURESH Vs. DHRUV NARAYAN PUROHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dtd. 14/10/2022 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan II, Jaipur by which the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 11 CPC has been rejected.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents-landlord filed a suit for eviction under Sec. 9 of the RAJASTHAN RENT CONTROL ACT , 2001 (for short "the Act of 2001") on the ground of bonafide necessity, comparative hardship and change of user by the petitioner-tenant. Learned counsel submits that several issues were framed in the earlier round of litigation in the suit submitted by the respondents and finally the suit for eviction was rejected by the court of Civil Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan vide judgment dtd. 20/10/2018. Learned counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, an appeal was preferred by the respondent-landlord before the Appellate Court, i.e., Additional District Judge No.14 Jaipur Metropolitan, however, the said appeal was also rejected vide judgment dtd. 24/7/2019 and the cross- objections submitted by the petitioner in the aforesaid appeal were rejected vide judgment dtd. 24/9/2019, hence the original judgment dtd. 20/10/2018 has attained finality.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now a successive suit with the same pleadings on the ground of bonafide necessity, alternative accommodation and non-user has been submitted by the respondents against the petitioner for ejecting him from the subject premises. Learned counsel submits that once the dispute between the parties has been decided by the Civil Judge in the earlier round of litigation vide judgment dtd. 20/10/2018, the successive suit filed by the respondents is barred by the principles of res judicata and the same is hit by Sec. 11 CPC and is not maintainable and liable to be rejected and that is why an application in this regard under Sec. 11 CPC was submitted. However, the same was rejected by the Tribunal vide order dtd. 14/10/2022, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.