Fresh notice to quit creates a new cause of action, so a later ejectment suit is not barred after dismissal for default.

A suit for ejectment under the Transfer of Property Act depends on termination of the tenancy by efflux of time or by a valid notice to quit. Where an earlier ejectment suit was dismissed for default, that dismissal does not extinguish the landlord's reversionary rights or create a tenancy in perpetuity; at most, it may amount to waiver of the earlier notice or assent to continued occupation, restoring a month-to-month tenancy. Because each tenancy month is treated as a fresh renewal, a later notice to quit gives rise to a new cause of action. On that reasoning, a second suit based on a fresh notice is not barred by Order 9 Rule 9 CPC.

---

---

Issues: Whether a second suit for ejectment based on a fresh notice to quit is barred under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 after an earlier ejectment suit was dismissed for default.

Analysis: A suit for ejectment under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 proceeds on the termination of the tenancy by efflux of time or by a valid notice to quit. Where a lease is unregistered or where the tenant continues after expiry without a registered renewal, the tenancy is treated as month-to-month or, after expiry without assent, as a tenancy at sufferance. A dismissal for default of the earlier ejectment suit does not extinguish the landlord's reversionary rights or convert the tenant into an owner or a tenant in perpetuity. At the highest, such dismissal operates as waiver of the earlier notice or assent to continuance, restoring the tenant to a month-to-month tenancy. Since each tenancy month constitutes a separate renewal and a fresh notice to quit creates a fresh cause of action, a subsequent suit founded on a later notice is not the same cause of action as the earlier suit dismissed in default.

Conclusion: The second suit for ejectment was not barred by Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and was maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Dismissal of an earlier ejectment suit for default does not bar a later ejectment suit based on a fresh notice to quit, because the dismissal amounts at most to waiver or assent restoring a month-to-month tenancy and each subsequent termination gives rise to a fresh cause of action.

---