Recurring rent default can create a fresh eviction cause of action, while revisional review remains limited to perverse findings only.

A recurring default in payment of rent was treated as a fresh and independent cause of action, so a subsequent eviction suit was not barred by res judicata or the rule against splitting claims. The revisional court was held unable to reappreciate concurrent findings on default and bona fide requirement unless they were perverse or unsupported by evidence, and no such basis was shown. A later restriction on change of user did not affect the landlords' present right to recover possession. Consideration of comparative hardship, though unnecessary for vacant land, did not vitiate the decree because the essential statutory requirement for eviction had already been satisfied.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether rent default arising during pendency of an earlier eviction proceeding could be relied upon in a subsequent eviction suit, and whether the claim was barred by res judicata or the rule against splitting claims; (ii) whether the revisional court could reappreciate evidence on rent default and bona fide requirement; (iii) whether a later restriction on change of user affected the landlord's right to recover possession; and (iv) whether consideration of comparative hardship, though not essential for eviction of vacant land, vitiated the decree.

Issue (i): Whether rent default arising during pendency of an earlier eviction proceeding could be relied upon in a subsequent eviction suit, and whether the claim was barred by res judicata or the rule against splitting claims.

Analysis: Default in payment of rent was treated as a recurring cause of action. The landlord's right to sue was held to crystallise on the relevant date, but each later default created a fresh and independent cause of action. The omission to pursue an earlier default in prior proceedings did not extinguish the right to sue on a subsequent, distinct default. The Court distinguished the rule against splitting a completed cause of action from later recurring defaults and held that the landlord's claim was not barred on that ground.

Conclusion: The subsequent eviction suit on the ground of rent default was maintainable and not barred against the respondents.

Issue (ii): Whether the revisional court could reappreciate evidence on rent default and bona fide requirement.

Analysis: Revisional jurisdiction was held to be narrower than appellate jurisdiction. Concurrent findings of fact, especially on regular payment of rent and bona fide requirement, could not be disturbed unless shown to be perverse, unsupported by evidence, or otherwise illegal. The Court found that the courts below had considered the material on record and that no case for reappraisal of evidence was made out.

Conclusion: The concurrent findings on default and bona fide requirement were not interfered with.

Issue (iii): Whether a later restriction on change of user affected the landlord's right to recover possession.

Analysis: The later administrative or regulatory restriction on change of user was held not to defeat the decree for eviction. Such a restriction may affect future redevelopment or permission for use, but it does not go to the validity of the landlord's present right to recover possession. The decree for eviction was therefore not rendered unenforceable by the subsequent change-in-user regime.

Conclusion: The later restriction on change of user did not affect the landlords' right to recover possession.

Issue (iv): Whether consideration of comparative hardship, though not essential for eviction of vacant land, vitiated the decree.

Analysis: The Court held that for vacant land, the governing provision required consideration of bona fide need for erection of a new building, not comparative hardship as under the provision applicable to premises with structures. Even if comparative hardship was additionally discussed by the courts below, that extraneous consideration did not vitiate the decree because the essential statutory requirement had already been met. Any such additional burden, if anything, operated against the landlords rather than the tenants.

Conclusion: The decree was not vitiated by the additional consideration of comparative hardship.

Final Conclusion: The revisions failed on all substantial grounds, and the concurrent decree for eviction in favour of the owners was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In rent-control litigation, a later and recurring default in payment of rent gives rise to an cause of action, and a revisional court cannot upset concurrent factual findings unless they are perverse or unsupported by evidence; additional consideration of an unnecessary factor does not invalidate an otherwise sustainable decree.

---