https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461213 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. en-us Mon, 27 Apr 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Mar 2025 19:21:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461213 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 27 Apr 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461213