The Rajasthan High Court, in the case Suresh v. Dhruv Narayan Purohit & Ors., held that a fresh eviction suit based on a newly arisen bona fide need is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata, even if an earlier suit on similar grounds was dismissed.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand delivered this ruling while dismissing a writ petition that challenged the order of the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur, which had rejected an application filed under Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The petitioner argued that the successive eviction suit was not maintainable as it was based on the same ground of bona fide necessity already dismissed in a previous suit that attained finality in 2018.
The landlord had previously filed an eviction suit citing the need to run a saree shop, which was dismissed. Now, the new suit was filed citing the need to operate a tours and travels business, along with two additional grounds: availability of alternative accommodation and non-user of the premises by the tenant.
Read also:- Parole Pleas Must Be Resolved Within 4 Months: Punjab & Haryana High Court Warns Jail Authorities
"A suit for eviction from the premises cannot be held to be barred even if the question of necessity has been decided against the landlord on the previous occasions, so as to hold that he will never have bonafide and genuine necessity in future,”
– Rajasthan High Court
The Court emphasized that a change in the nature of the landlord's need and fresh grounds of eviction could justify a new suit. Justice Dhand observed that even though the property remains the same, the cause of action—i.e., the need—may be entirely different based on the circumstances at the time of the new filing.
Read also:- Cartoonist Hemant Malviya Moves Supreme Court for Anticipatory Bail Over Satirical Post on PM and RSS
The judgment referred to key Supreme Court decisions including:
“Even if a suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement is dismissed, it cannot be held that once a question of necessity is decided against the landlord, he will never have a genuine necessity in the future.”
– N.R. Narayan Swamy v. B. Francis Jagan
Similarly, in Surajmal v. Radhey Shyam, the Apex Court ruled:
“It cannot be assumed that once the question of necessity is decided against the plaintiff, he will not have a bona fide and genuine necessity ever in future.”
Read also:- Intelligence Officer Gets Bail in Kerala High Court in Alleged Suicide Abetment Case
Also, the High Court referred to its own decision in Ratni Devi v. LRs of Kishan Kanwar, reiterating that grounds of eviction may arise and vanish with time, and successive suits are justified if based on fresh facts.
Ultimately, the Court found no merit in the writ petition and upheld the Tribunal's decision:
“The Tribunal has not committed any error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 11 CPC.”
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Title: Suresh v Dhruv Narayan Purohit & Ors.