JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) - The landlord is in revision against the order of the Appellate Authority, reversing the order of the Rent Controller by which the eviction petition was allowed on the ground of personal necessity. 2. In brief, the undisputed facts are that the petitioner filed the eviction petition on the ground of non payment of arrears of rent and personal necessity. The present case pertains to the petition filed in the year 2003. The petition was allowed and eviction was ordered on the ground of personal necessity. However, it is also not in dispute that the petitioner had also filed another eviction petition on the ground of non payment of arrears of rent and personal necessity in the year 2008. In that petition, issue No.2 was categorically framed as to whether demised premises was required by the petitioner for his bonafide necessity? The burden was upon the petitioner to prove the issue but he did not choose to lead any evidence to prove bonafide necessity and the eviction petition was dismissed on 19.1.2011. The Appellate Authority in the present case held that the findings recorded in the petition filed in the year 2008 would operate as res judicata insofar as issue of personal necessity in the present case is concerned while relying upon the decision of this Court in Bhagwan Dass (died) through LRs. Vs. Ramesh Kumar 1999(4) RCR (Civil) 641. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petition filed in the year 2008 was dismissed for lack of evidence and was not decided on merits. Therefore, findings recorded on issue No.1 cannot operate as res judicata. He has relied upon judgment of Bombay High Court in Kaikhosrou (Chick) Kavasji Framji of Indian Inhabitant & Another Vs. The Union of India and another. 4. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has reiterated his stand while relying upon decision of this Court in Bhagwan Dass (died) through LRs. (supra). 5. He has relied upon judgment of Bombay High Court in Kaikhosrou (Chick) Kavasji Framji of Indian Inhabitant & Another Vs. The Union of India and another. 4. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has reiterated his stand while relying upon decision of this Court in Bhagwan Dass (died) through LRs. (supra). 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the case file, I am of the considered opinion that the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Kaikhosrou (Chick) Kavasji Framji of Indian Inhabitant & Another (supra) would not be applicable because in that case it was held that if suit is not disposed of on merits but for want of jurisdiction or being barred by time or for being defectively constituted then finality of findings of trial court cannot operate as res judicata in subsequent proceedings whereas in the present case neither the Rent Controller had dismissed the subsequent suit filed in the year 2008 for want of jurisdiction or on the ground of being barred by time or being defectively constituted rather the application was dismissed because the landlord-petitioner did not choose to lead evidence to prove the bonafide necessity. 6. In this case, judgment of Bhagwan Dass (died) through LRs. (supra) would definitely be applicable because it has been held by this Court that even if petition for eviction filed by the landlord fails, because he failed to produce evidence despite opportunity given by this Court, in terms of Order 17 Rule 3 CPC, the said decision would be applicable and would operate as res judicata. 7. I subscribe the view taken by this Court in the case of Bhagwan Dass (died) through LRs. (supra). Consequently, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————