ORDER V. Gopala Gowda, J.--This revision petition is filed against the judgment and Decree of the trial Court dated 13.3.2000 partly decreeing the suit in S.C. No. 3479 of 1999 filed by the Petitioner for recovery of arrears of rent. 2. The Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.24,500/-. The trial Court held that the tenant is in arrears of rent for 35 months. The rate of rent is Rs.700/- per month. Thus, the Plaintiff's claim for recovery of Rs.24,500/- was affirmed. However, the trial Court held that the claim for arrears of rent in a sum of Rs.14,000/- is barred by Order II, Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure, which is extracted hereunder: (2) Relinquishment of part of claim.-Where a Plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished. In the instant case, the Plaintiff has neither omitted nor relinquished his claim for Rs.14,000/- denied by the trial Court. The trial Court wrongly applied the above provision because the Plaintiff filed suit in O.S. No. 2334 of 1998 for eviction. That was a different cause of action and the same could not have been taken into consideration while considering the suit for recovery of arrears of rent. Hence, the reason assigned by the trial Court is contrary to the decision reported in Shivaram Vs. Chinnanna, ILR (1987) KAR 1827 wherein it is held that causes of action for suit for possession and mesne profits different from cause of action for suit for recovery of rent and the subsequent suit for recovery of rent is not barred under Order II, Rule 2 Code of Civil Procedure. Since the trial Court held that the claim of the Plaintiff in the affirmative, it should have decreed the suit for the entire claim. Rejection of claim for Rs.14,000/- is bad in law and contrary to the aforesaid decision. 3. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. The suit is decreed as prayed for with interest at 6% per annum.