Shankar Bhosle vs Damji Pawar
2021 Latest Caselaw 393 MP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 393 MP
Judgement Date : 2 March, 2021

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shankar Bhosle vs Damji Pawar on 2 March, 2021

Author: Anjuli Palo

                                                                  CR No.216/2020



       THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
                                   ********
              Single Bench : Hon'ble Smt. Justice Anjuli Palo

                                   ********

                       Civil Revision No.216/2020

                              Shankar Bhosle
                                    v.
                               Damji Pawar
                                 *********

           Mr. Siddharth Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.

           Mr. Jaideep Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the respondent.

                                   ********

                                 ORDER

(2.3.2021)

1. This revision is preferred against the order dated 03.07.2020

passed in Case No.0002A/90(7)/ 2019-20 by the Sub-Divisional Officer

(Revenue) Betul whereby the application preferred by the respondent

under Section 23 E has been allowed and the applicant herein Shankar

Bhosle has been directed to pay rent of the suit accommodation for a

period of 36 months i.e. Rs.43,200/- and he shall also handover the

vacant possession of the suit accommodation to the respondent Damji

Pawar.

2. Previously, the respondent had filed an application under Section

23 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, which was dismissed,

thereafter again he filed an application under Section 23 A of the M.P.

Accommodation Control Act claiming that he is the owner of the land

bearing Khasra No. 287/2 area 0.66 hectare in which the present

appellant is still residing as his tenant since long from the time of his

father. In october, 1973, the father of the present appellant had taken the

house on rent at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month. Time to time rent was

increased upto Rs. 1200/- per month. In the year 1984, the father of the

respondent died still father of the present appellant paid monthly rent to

CR No.216/2020

the respondent. Till, April, 2017, the appellant paid monthly rent at the rate

of Rs. 1200/- per month to the respondent. The suit house was required

for bonafide need because in his family, there are so many members. The

respondent is an old aged person suffering from various diseases. The

suit house is suitable for him. Thus prayer is made for eviction of the

appellant from the house and also for arrears of rent from April, 2017.

3. In the subsequent case, the right of the appellant to defend the

case has been closed by the trial Court. By the impugned order, the trial

Court passed the decree for eviction of the appellant and directed to pay

arrears of rent Rs.43,200/- to the respondent.

4. This revision has been filed by the appellant on the ground that the

impugned order is barred by res judicata as the matter was already

decided on 30.04.2019. Order dated 30.04.2019 was not challenged

before any forum. The impugned order and decree is barred by res

judicata, thus fresh suit is not maintainable. There was no landlord tenant

relationship established in the case. No rent was paid to the respondent

any time, hence impugned order and decree is liable to be set aside.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance in the

case of K.S. Sundararaju Vs. M.R. Ramachandra Naidu reported in AIR

1994 SC 2129 and Kachree Pd. Sharma Vs. Anand Kishore Gupta

reported in 1995 MPLJ Note 37 and contended that under the Rent

Control Act for the eviction on the basis of bonafide requirement of the

landlord, subsequent case is not barred by res judicata.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that relationship

of the appellant and the respondent of landlord and tenant has not been

established. The earlier order has not been challenged by the respondent,

hence subseuqent case is barred by res judicata.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused

the record. It is not a case where bonafide needs was pleaded for

CR No.216/2020

different time, hence the principal laid down in case of K.S. Sundararaju

Chettiar (supra) is not applicable in this case. In the case of Alka Gupta

Vs. Narender Kumar Gupta reported in (2010) 10 SCC 141, the

Supreme Court has observed as under:-

"The object of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC is twofold. First is to ensure that no defendant is sued and vexed twice in regard to the same cause of action. Second is to prevent a plaintiff from splitting of claims and remedies based on the same cause of action. The effect of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC is to bar a plaintiff who had earlier claimed certain remedies in regard to a cause of action, from filing a second suit in regard to other reliefs based on the same cause of action. It does not however bar a second suit based on a different and distinct cause of action. "

8. In the present case, The respondent had filed an application under

Section 23 A of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 before the

Rent Controlling Authority. The earlier application was dismissed on

30.4.2019 on the ground that relationship in between the applicant and

respondent of landlord and tenant was not established, which order was

not challenged by the respondent in appeal. Thus, order dated 30.4.2019

attained finality in absence of any appeal against it, therefore, subsequent

case on the same ground is not maintainable. The principles of res

judicata can be invoked not only in separate subsequent proceedings but

they also get attracted in subsequent stage of the same proceedings.

Once an order made in the course of proceedings, it becomes final, it

would be binding at the subsequent stage of that proceedings. Thus, the