MURLIDHAR KHUNTETA Vs. BHOORAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has arisen in the following circumstances: The respondent-plaintiff is the landlord and the revision petitioner is the defendant-tenant. The plaintiff let out his Nohra situate in the town of Chomu on 25th june, 1945, on rent of Rs. 18/- per year to the defendant. The landlord terminated his tenancy by a notice dated 18th October, 1962. The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent on 9th July, 1965, on the grounds of default, personal requirement and repairs. It was eventually withdrawn on 23rd december, 1970 (sic), without leave to file a fresh one. The plaintiff then filed another suit on 7th November, 1969 (sic), on the grounds of default, personal requirement and subletting. This suit was dismissed for default. The plaintiff then filed this third suit on 6th November, 1971, on grounds of (1) default. (2)personal requirement, (3) subletting and (4) repairs as the premises had become unsafe for the neighbours.

(2.) THE Issue No. 10-B was framed in the court below as follows : "whether the previous suit having been withdrawn without leave to file a fresh suit, the present suit is not maintainable. " It was urged before the lower court that the present suit was filed on the grounds of which three are new, namely, subletting, nuisance and fresh default. Personal necessity was the only common ground. The learned Munsif agreed with his contention and held that the suit was maintainable. Hence this revision.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as far as default is concerned, the matter has come to rest because the petitioner applied under section 13-A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, on 28th October, 1975, and appears to have made the requisite payment. The grounds of personal requirement and repairs cannot be agitated again because these were the grounds of eviction taken in the first suit. Subletting was added in the second suit. As regards nuisance, it was pointed out that in para. 15 of the plaint, the respondent stated that the Nohra is falling and is likely to cause loss of life and property in the neighbourhood and was in need of repairs. It is said that it was a new ground. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, pointed out that in the first suit, in paragraph 5 of the plaint, the plaintiff had stated that the Nohra needed repairs. This also cannot form a new ground. It was urged that whether the grounds of eviction are held to be causes of action or whether the termination of tenancy is taken to be a cause of action either way, third suit is barred under Order 23, Rule 1 or under order 9, Rule 9, C. P. C. and the learned Munsif has no jurisdiction to proceed with the suit and it should be directed to be dismissed.