‘A’ let out his residential house in Delhi to ‘B’ vide registered lease deed dated 15-3-1992. This lease was for a period of three years commencing from 1-3-1992 and ending on 28-2-1995. Monthly rent fixed was Rs. 20,000. After the expiry of the lease period, no new lease was executed........‘B’ took the plea that suit was barred under Order II, rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. whether this plea of ‘B’ is sustainable in law?

Question: ‘A’ let out his residential house in Delhi to ‘B’ vide registered lease deed dated 15-3-1992. This lease was for a period of three years commencing from 1-3-1992 and ending on 28-2-1995. Monthly rent fixed was Rs. 20,000. After the expiry of the lease period, no new lease was executed.
It was orally agreed between the parties that there would be an extension of tenancy by a further period of three years on the enhancement of rent by 15%. ‘B’ started paying the rent at an enhanced rate of w.e.f. 1-3-1995, which ‘A’ accepted until November 1995. Thereafter vide legal notice dated 4-12-1995 was served upon ‘B’ under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
‘A’ terminated the tenancy w.e.f. 31-1-1996 and called upon ‘B’ to handover possession in the District Court. Decree for possession was passed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 12-12-2002 holding that after the termination of the tenancy by legal notice the tenant was in unlawful possession. After this decree, ‘A’ filed another suit claiming mesne profits on 19-1-2003 w.e.f. 20-1-2000 and also for the future period till the possession is handed over. ‘B’ took the plea that suit was barred under Order II, rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. whether this plea of ‘B’ is sustainable in law? [DJS. (2007)].

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [‘A’ let out his residential house in Delhi to ‘B’ vide registered lease deed dated 15-3-1992. This lease was for a period of three years commencing from 1-3-1992 and ending on 28-2-1995. Monthly rent fixed was Rs. 20,000. After the expiry of the lease period, no new lease was executed........‘B’ took the plea that suit was barred under Order II, rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. whether this plea of ‘B’ is sustainable in law?]

Answer

Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 states the principle of "res judicata," which essentially means that a matter that has already been adjudicated and decided by a competent court cannot be re-agitated between the same parties. It prevents multiplicity of litigation and ensures finality to legal proceedings.

In the present case, the first suit filed by 'A' was for possession of the property after terminating the tenancy, and the trial court passed a decree for possession on 12-12-2002. The crucial question here is whether the claim for mesne profits arises out of the same cause of action as the previous suit, and if so, whether it was included in the previous suit or not.

The cause of action refers to the entire set of facts that give rise to the right to sue. If the cause of action for the claim of mesne profits is the same as the cause of action for possession, then 'A' should have included both claims in the same suit. However, if the cause of action for mesne profits is subsequent to the termination of the tenancy and arises after the possession decree was passed, it may be treated as a separate and distinct cause of action.

The key dates to consider are:

1. Lease period: 1-3-1992 to 28-2-1995

2. Oral agreement for extension of tenancy: from 1-3-1995

3. Legal notice of termination served: 4-12-1995

4. Possession decree passed: 12-12-2002

5. Second suit filed by 'A' for mesne profits: 19-1-2003

Since 'B' continued to occupy the property after the termination of the lease and after the legal notice was served, it can be argued that the claim for mesne profits arises out of the same cause of action as the claim for possession. Both claims stem from 'B's occupation of the property beyond the lease period and despite the termination notice. Therefore, according to the principle of res judicata, both claims should have been included in the same suit for possession filed by 'A.' As 'A' did not include the claim for mesne profits in the initial suit, the plea taken by 'B' that the suit for mesne profits is barred under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 appears to be sustainable in law. The subsequent claim for mesne profits should have been filed along with the first suit for possession, and 'A' cannot now bring a separate suit for the same cause action.

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams