Case Note & Summary
The case involves a dispute between landlords (appellants) and tenants (respondents) over a suit for ejectment and possession. The original landlord, Rajaram, obtained permission from the Rent Controller and served a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, on 11.02.1974, terminating the tenancy. He then filed Regular Civil Suit No. 190/1974 on 20.09.1974 for ejectment, recovery of rent, etc. During the pendency of that suit, Rajaram died on 25.07.1977. An application to bring his legal heirs on record was filed but was not traceable, leading the trial court to hold that the suit had abated. Subsequently, the legal heirs (present appellants) issued a fresh notice dated 07.03.1984 and filed Regular Civil Suit No. 35/1985 for possession and damages. The respondents opposed the suit, contending that the permission granted by the Rent Controller stood exhausted after the abatement of the first suit, and the second suit was barred under Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The trial court and the first appellate court concurrently held that the second suit was based on the same cause of action and was not tenable. The High Court, in second appeal, examined whether the second suit was barred. The appellants argued that the first suit was not decided on merits and that a fresh notice created a new cause of action, relying on a Calcutta High Court judgment. The High Court, however, found that the abatement of the first suit exhausted the Rent Controller's permission, and without fresh permission, the second suit could not be maintained. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Abatement of Suit - Order 22 Rule 9 - Bar on Second Suit - The legal heirs of the deceased landlord filed a second suit for ejectment after the first suit abated due to failure to bring legal heirs on record. The courts below held that the second suit was based on the same cause of action and thus barred under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC. The High Court affirmed that the abatement of the first suit exhausted the Rent Controller's permission, and a fresh notice without obtaining fresh permission could not revive the cause of action. (Paras 1-4) B) Rent Control - Permission to Sue - Exhaustion of Permission - The permission granted by the Rent Controller to the original landlord to terminate tenancy stood exhausted upon the dismissal of the first ejectment suit. The legal heirs could not issue a fresh notice and file a second suit without obtaining fresh permission from the Rent Controller. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a second suit for ejectment and possession filed by the legal heirs of the landlord after the abatement of the earlier suit is barred under Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the permission granted by the Rent Controller stands exhausted upon dismissal of the first suit.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below that the suit for ejectment and possession was barred under Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court held that the abatement of the first suit exhausted the Rent Controller's permission, and a fresh notice without obtaining fresh permission could not sustain the second suit.
Law Points
- Order 22 Rule 9 CPC bars a second suit on the same cause of action after abatement of the first suit
- permission granted by Rent Controller stands exhausted upon dismissal of the first suit
- fresh notice without fresh permission is invalid
