N.R. NARAYAN SWAMY versus B. FRANCIS JAGAN

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 109 · Decided: 31-07-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-· 
N.R. NARAYAN SWAMY 
v. 
B. FRANCIS JAGAN 
JULY 31, 2001 
[M.B. SHAH AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Rent and Eviction. 
Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961: Section 45-Eviction petition-Bona 
fide requirement-Eviction petition filed on bona fide requirement withdrawn 
as the tenant promised to vacate suit premises-As the tenant did not vacate, 
eviction, petition filed once again on bona fide requirement-Maintainability 
of-Held: In eviction petition ground of bona fide requirement is a recurring 
cause-(Jenuineness of the ground of bona fide requirement is to be decided 
A 
B 
c 
on the basis of the requirement on the date of suit-Therefore, land lord is not D 
precluded from initiating fresh proceeding. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Order XXlll Rule 1(4)(b)-Applicability of-To a suit for eviction-On 
ground of bona fide requirement-Held: Bona fide requirement is a recurring E 
cause-Hence, O.XXlll R.1 (4)(b) has no application in a proceeding initiated 
for recovery of suit premises on the ground of bona fide requirement. 
The appellant-landlord filed a suit for eviction of the respondent-tenant 
on the ground of bona fide requirement of the suit premises. The respondent-
tenant promised that he would vacate the suit premises and hand over vacant F 
possession. Therefore, the appellant withdrew the eviction petition. 
The appellant once again filed an eviction petition on the ground of bona 
fide requirement since the respondent did not vacate the suit premises. In the 
said suit the respondent filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of 
Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Order XXlll Rule 1(4)(b) contending that G 
as the previous suit was withdrawn, the present suit was not maintainable 
and was also barred by principle of res judicata as enunciated in Section 45 
of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. The trial court rejected the said 
. application. 
109 
H 
110 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.. 
A 
High Court allowed the revision application filed by the respondent by 
holding that the relief claimed by the appellant in the present and previous 
proceedings was same and, therefore, second petition for the same cause was 
not maintainable and as the previous suit was withdrawn without seeking 
permission of the Court, it wlls barred under Order XXIII Rule 1(4)(b) of 
B the CPC. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In eviction proceedings under the Karnataka Rent Control 
Act, 1961 the ground of bona fide requirement or non-payment of rent is a 
C recurring cause and, therefore, landlord is not precluded from instituting fresh 
proceeding. In an eviction suit on the ground of bona fide requirement the 
genuineness of the said ground has to be decided on the basis of requirement 
on the date of the suit Further, even if a suit for eviction on the ground of 
bona fide requirement is filed and is dismissed, it cannot be said that once a 
question of necessity is decided against the landlord he will not have a bona 
D fide genuine necessity ever in future. In the subsequent proceedings, if such 
claim is established by cogent evidence adduced by the landlord, decree for 
possession could be passed. [112-E-GJ 
K.S. Sundararaju Che/liar v. MR. Ramchandra Naidu, (1994) 5 SCC, 14 
E and Surajmal v. Radhe Shyam, (1988) 3 SCC 18, relied on. 
1.2. Section 45 of Act would have no application as the previous 
proceeding for taking possession of the premises was not pressed and stood 
disposed of without deciding any issue. 
F 
2. Order XXIII Rule 1(4)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 would 
have no application in a proceeding initiated for recovering the suit premises 
on the ground of bona fide requirement which is a recurring cause. Order 
XXllI Rule 1(4)(b) precludes the plaintiff from instituting any fresh suit in 
respect of such subject matter or such part of the claim, which the plaintiff 
G has withdrawn. In a suit for eviction of a tenant under the Rent Act on the 
ground of bona fide requirement even though the premises remains the same, 
the subject matter, which is cause of action, may be different. The ground for 
eviction in the subsequent proceedings is based upon the requirement on the 
date of the said suit even though it relates to the same property. (113-F-GJ 
H 
Val/abh Das v. Dr. Madan/al, 1197011 SCC 761, relied on. 
N.R. NARAYAN SWAMYv. B. FRANCIS JAGAN [SHAH, J.] 
111 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4800 of A 
2001. 
From the Judgment an

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.