- The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently upheld the trial court's decision in the landlord's eviction petition and held that the second eviction petition is not barred by the principle of res judicata because it was filed on changed circumstances that were not pleaded in the previous petition.
- The bench, led by Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan, also noted that in the instant case, the landlord sought eviction on two grounds: bonafide necessity for upgrading the building and failure to pay rent arrears, whereas the earlier petition was only for bonafide necessity.
- The petitioner/landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, alleging that the respondent is liable to be evicted for failing to pay rent arrears and for requiring premises for personal reasons.
- The respondent/tenant challenged the suit on the grounds that an earlier rent petition had been decided, rendering the current petition barred by res judicata under Section 11 CPC.
- The Rent Controller ruled in favour of the petitioner and determined that the petitioner/landlord is entitled to evict the respondent.
- As a result, the Rent Controller decided Issues Nos. 1 and 3 in favour of the petitioner, establishing that the petitioner/landlord is entitled to evict the respondent.
- Concerning the petition's maintainability, the rent controller determined that it is not barred by the principle of res judicata because the previous judgement did not resolve the inter se dispute between the parties and is not binding because it was dismissed for lack of evidence.
- Following that, the respondent/tenant filed an appeal with the Lower Appellate Court, which reversed the findings on Issue No.2 and dismissed the petitioner's eviction petition.
- Following a hearing with counsel for the petitioner and a review of the record, the court determined that it was appropriate to grant the instant revision petition, and the findings recorded by the Lower Appellate Court were set aside, while those of the trial Court were restored/upheld, directing the respondent/tenant to vacate the premises.
"Loved reading this piece by Twinkle Madaan?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
