JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellant against the judgment and order dated 27.10.2005 passed by the first appellate court being the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, by which he has remanded the suit to the trial court for its trial on merit.It appears that a suit for eviction has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent in the year 1986 on the ground of his bona fide personal necessity, which was dismissed as the plaintiff-respondent could not prove his plea of bona fide personal necessity for seeking a decree of eviction. The plaintiff-respondent thereafter retired from service on 31.5.1994 after which he filed a fresh suit for eviction on the ground of his bona fide personal necessity as also the personal necessity of his son which accrued in the year 1998 as a fresh cause of action due to subsequent events, but the suit was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the suit should be treated as barred on the Principle of Res Judicata.The plaintiff-respondent, thereafter preferred an appeal before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur wherein it was held that the suit would not be barred on the ground of Principle of Res Judicata as the ground of personal necessity came into existence at a subsequent stage after the appellant retired from service and, therefore, his plea for personal necessity could not be barred by the Principle of Res Judicata.Assailing the judgment and order of the court below, it was vehemently submitted by the counsel for the defendant-appellant that the suit, which was filed in the year 1998, having been barred by the Principle of Res Judicata, should not have been remanded to the trial court for a fresh consideration as the respondent-plaintiff had already approached the court earlier seeking a decree of eviction on the ground of his bona fide personal necessity. 2. The question, therefore, which emerges in the facts and circumstances of this case, is whether a suit on the ground of personal necessity, which was dismissed earlier, would be treated as barred by the Principle of Res Judicata although the subsequent event changes the circumstance and offers a fresh cause of action to the aggrieved party to file a suit for eviction. In other words, whether a suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide personal necessity in spite of subsequent events and fresh cause of action can be treated as barred by the Principle of Res Judicata for all times to come is the question for consideration. Fortunately, this question has already been dealt with by the learned Judges of the Supreme Court in the matter of N.R. Narayan Swamy v. B. Francis Jagan, reported in 2001 WLC (SC) Civil 665 : AIR 2001 SC 2469 where the question for consideration was whether successive suits can be filed by landlord on ground of bona fide requirement or non-payment of rent. The learned Judges have been pleased to hold therein that in eviction proceedings under the Rent Act the ground of bona fide requirement or non-payment of rent is a recurring cause of action and, therefore, a landlord is not precluded from instituting fresh proceeding for seeking a decree of eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement and the genuineness of the said ground has to be decided on the basis of requirement on the date of the suit. Another judgment, on which reliance has been placed by the counsel for the respondent Shri Mandhana is the judgment and order reported in AIR 1988 SC 1345 in the matter of Surajmal v. Radheshyam wherein a similar question had arisen as to whether a second suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide need can be barred by the principle of Res Judicata and in this case also, the learned Judges had been pleased to hold that a suit for eviction from the premises cannot be held barred even if the question of necessity had been decided against the landlord on the previous occasion so as to hold that he will never have bona fide and genuine necessity even in future. 3. Thus, the controversy in this appeal already stands settled vide the judgment and order of the Apex Court and in view of the ratio, this appeal stands dismissed at the admission stage itself.Appeal Dismissed. *******