- (1.) Respondent had sought ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity. The said petition was allowed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 21.09.2010. The order passed by the Rent Controller was upheld by the appellate authority vide order dated 10.05.2012. Hence, the present petition by the tenant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on an earlier occasion, ejectment petition was filed by the landlord against the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity and the same was dismissed under Order 17 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC'). Hence, the second petition seeking ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity was liable to be dismissed.
(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that earlier ejectment petition was dismissed under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC which was filed by M.L. Goyal and his wife Saraswati Devi for expansion of their business. However, now the property in question had come to the share of the petitioners in a family settlement. Due to this reason, the second ejectment petition was maintainable. The premises in question was required by the landlord for his personal use as he wanted to expand his business of readymade garments. In fact, the landlord wanted to renovate the entire building and run his business in the same premises. In support of arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.R. Narayan Swamy v. B. Francis Jagan, 2001 2 RCR(Rent) 169 wherein it was held as under:- In our view, the High Court ought to have considered the fact that in eviction proceedings under the Rent Act the ground of bona fide requirement or nonpayment of rent is a 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 is 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 held that once a question of necessity is decided against the landlord he will not have a bona fide and 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. [Re: K.S. Sundararaju Chettiar v. M.R. Ramachandra Naidu, 1994 5 SCC 14(para 10) and Surajmal v. Radhe Shyam, 1988 3 SCC 18]. The aforesaid rule 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 XXIII 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 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 requirement on the date of the said suit even though it relates to the same property. Dealing with similar contention in Vallabh Das v. Dr. Madanlal and Others, 1970 1 SCC 761, this Court observed thus:- The expression "subject-matter" is not defined in the Civil Procedure Code. It does not mean property. That expression has a reference to a right in the property which the plaintiff seeks to enforce. That expression includes the cause of action and the relief claimed. Unless the cause of action and the relief claimed in the second suit are the same as in the first suit, it cannot be said that the subject-matter of the second suit is the same as that in the previous suit.
(3.) In the present case, respondent-landlord had sought ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity. It was the case of the landlord that he wanted to extend his business. Landlord appeared in the witness box and stated that he required the shop-cum-office in question including the demised premises for his personal use. Respondent further stated that he was running the business of ready made garments in the half portion on the ground-floor of the SCO in question which was insufficient for running his business. He further stated that some of the tenants had already vacated the portion in their occupation and he wanted to renovate the entire building and run his business in the same.;