In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has clarified that filing a suit for the recovery of possession is distinct from a suit for arrears of rent and damages. This means that a subsequent suit for rent arrears can be filed after a possession suit, as they are based on different causes of action.
The Court emphasized that a second suit on a different cause of action is not barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This rule prevents plaintiffs from splitting their claims into multiple lawsuits but does not apply when the causes of action differ.
In this case, the plaintiff initiated two separate suits: one for possession of the property and another for rent arrears and damages. The defendant argued that the plaintiff should have consolidated all claims into a single suit, invoking the specific bar under Order 2 Rule 2.
However, the bench, including Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale, rejected the defendant’s contention. The Court ruled that the subsequent suit for rent arrears and damages was not barred, as the claims were based on different causes of action. The plaintiff had no intention to relinquish the claim for arrears, justifying the filing of a separate suit.
This decision referenced a recent ruling in M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. ATM Constructions Pvt Ltd, where it was established that suits for possession and for damages due to property use are distinct causes of action. Thus, a second suit for damages is maintainable even after a possession suit.
The ruling ensures that plaintiffs can seek redress for rent arrears and damages separately, providing clarity on the application of Order 2 Rule 2 and reinforcing the distinction between different legal claims.
