JUDGMENT : (K. Natarajan, J.) This appeal is filed by the appellant/ defendant under Section 96 of CPC., for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the VII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-19), in O.S.No.7633/2013 dated 27.06.2015, for having decreed the suit of the plaintiff and directing the defendant to pay the rent of Rs.1,30,582/- with 12% interest per annum from the date of the suit till its realisation. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the respondent and appellant. 3. The rank of the parties before the Trial Court is retained for the sake of convenience. 4. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the plaintiff was the owner, and the defendant was the tenant under the suit premises of plaintiff, situated at first floor, 7th main, 4th stage, Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore. He was a tenant from 05.08.2010 to 29.06.2012. He was paying the monthly rent of Rs.8,600/- +400 towards water charges + 100 towards maintenance charges, totally Rs.9,100/- per month. Later he was default of payment of rent for two months and later a notice was issued and tenancy was terminated by the plaintiff. Accordingly, notice was issued on 26.03.2011 and suit came to be filed in April 2011 and the suit came to be decreed in OS.No.25824/2011 and the defendant also vacated the premises and handover the possession on 29.06.2012 and with arrears of rent of Rs.18,200/-. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of the rent from the filing of the suit till vacating the premises by the defendant on 29.06.2012, totally Rs.1,45,600/- has been calculated, Rs.50,000/- advance amount has been adjusted and the plaintiff spent Rs.29,689/-towards the painting charges and electricity charges Rs.293.54/-also paid by the plaintiff. Therefore filed this fresh suit for claiming Rs.1,30,582/- by issuing the notice, later suit came to be filed. 5. The defendant appeared through the counsel and filed written statement contending that, the defendant has vacated the premises in April and hand over the key before the court which was received by him. The plaintiff refused to accept the same and the defendant is already vacated the premises and is not liable to pay any rent from April 2012. The defendant is not liable to pay Rs.29,689/- towards the painting charges, two months rent ordered by the trial court in the earlier suit has been deposited. The plaintiff refused to accept the same and the defendant is already vacated the premises and is not liable to pay any rent from April 2012. The defendant is not liable to pay Rs.29,689/- towards the painting charges, two months rent ordered by the trial court in the earlier suit has been deposited. The plaintiff suppressed the facts and payment of arrears of rent in OS.No.25824/2011 and denying all averments and prayed for dismissing the suit. 6. Based upon the pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the 4 issues which are as under; 1. Does the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to recover a total sum of Rs.1,30,582/- towards arrears of rent for the use and occupation of the premises, towards cost of the painting, electricity charges etc., as prayed under the suit? 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of constructive res-judicata? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for current and future interest? If so, at what rate? 4. What order or decree? 7. To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.11 documents. The defendant and one witness are examined as DW.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.D.1 to D.5 documents. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the same the defendant is before this court. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended mainly on the ground that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable that the plaintiff has already filed the suit and claimed the rent in the earlier suit which was decreed and the defendant paid the arrears of rent as per the decree and the said decree was attained finality. Therefore subsequent suit is not maintainable, which is hit by Order II Rule 2 of CPC., where all the claims he has to file in one suit and claim all the relief, if any relief not claimed or forgone once again he cannot claim in a subsequent suit. Therefore the second suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Therefore the second suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the appellant also contended that as per contention of the respondent/ plaintiff the tenancy was terminated on 26.03.2011 and therefore the plaintiff could have claimed the damages in the same suit which was not claimed, therefore question of claiming rent in a subsequent suit is not maintainable. The defendant/appellant is not liable to pay any rent after termination of the tenancy, he also contended that the plaintiff claimed two months arrears of rent in the legal notice, where the defendant sent the cheques for the rent but he has not presented. Therefore the trial court observed in the judgment the conduct of the plaintiff, such being the case the question of decreeing the suit by directing the defendant to pay the arrears of rent does not arises. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal and subsequently dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 9. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent contended that Order II Rule 2 of CPC., is not applicable to the case on hand, the suit was filed only for seeking possession and arrears of rent only for two months and it was decreed but after filing of suit the defendant was in possession of the suit premises, he was vacated only in June 2012. Therefore from the date of filing the suit till vacating the premises he has to pay the arrears of rent, merely it was mentioned as rent and not named as damages that itself not a ground to dismiss the suit. The defendant required to pay Rs.1,45,600/- for the rent from March 2011 till June 2012 and Rs.50,000/- of deposit amount made by the defendant has been deducted, the painting charges Rs.29,600/- has been added, electricity charges not paid by the defendant which are all calculated and filed a separate suit for claiming the rent/damages, it has to be payable by the defendant. Therefore without having knowledge when the defendant going to vacate the premises, the plaintiff can claim the damages or arrears of rent. Therefore, the subsequent suit is maintainable. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 10. Having heard the arguments and perused the records the points that arises for my consideration are; 1) Whether the suit of the plaintiff for claiming the arrears of rent in subsequent suit is maintainable? Therefore, the subsequent suit is maintainable. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 10. Having heard the arguments and perused the records the points that arises for my consideration are; 1) Whether the suit of the plaintiff for claiming the arrears of rent in subsequent suit is maintainable? 2) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is hit by Order II Rule 2 of CPC., as he has foregone the claim in the earlier suit in OS.No.25824/2011? 3) What order? 11. Having heard the arguments and perused the records, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff was the landlord and the defendant was the tenant as per the lease agreement dated 07.06.2003 and the defendant was paying the rent of Rs.9,100/- per month. Admittedly, the plaintiff has filed the suit in OS.No.25824/2011 claiming the possession as well as two months arrears of rent, it is also an admitted fact that the plaintiff issued the notice under Section 106 of TP Act, for terminating the tenancy. It is also rightly held by the defendant counsel, once the landlord and tenancy relationship has been terminated there is no relationship between the landlord and tenant and therefore the question of claiming the rent subsequent to the filing the suit does not arises. However the plaintiff could have filed suit for recovery of the damages instead of the rent. However merely it is named as rent as not damages that itself is not a ground to reject the claim of the plaintiff. Admittedly earlier suit was for eviction from suit premises and possession of the suit premises with arrears of two months rent i.e., Rs.18,200/-which was decreed by the court in the year 2013. Admittedly the defendant was vacated the premises only on 29.06.2012 and the earlier suit was decreed on 12.04.2013 and a decree was only for vacating premises and handover the possession with arrears of rent of Rs.18,200/- but the defendant though vacated the premises in June 2012 but he has not intimated to the court for vacating the premises admitting the suit of the plaintiff. Therefore it is admitted fact there is no rent paid by the defendant to the plaintiff from the date of filing the earlier suit. Therefore it is admitted fact there is no rent paid by the defendant to the plaintiff from the date of filing the earlier suit. The defendant is due of Rs.1,45,600/-towards arrears of rent and Rs.29,689/- towards painting charges and Rs.293.54/- towards electricity charges, almost for 16 months commencing from March 2011 to end of June 2012, after deducting Rs.50,000/- advance paid by the defendant, the defendant liable to pay Rs.1,25,582/-. 12. The contention of the appellant is that as per Order II Rule 2 of CPC., the damages could have claimed by the plaintiff in the earlier suit or arrears of rent claimed in the earlier suit, therefore he has not claimed in the earlier suit, therefore subsequent suit is not maintainable. 13. For the purpose of better understanding Order II Rule 2 of CPC., is referred as under; (2) Relinquishment of part of claim.- Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of portion so omitted or relinquished. 14. It also settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions, in order to attract Order II Rule 2 of CPC., both the suit should not be for the same or identical in nature in order to attract order II Rule 3 of CPC., 15. The defendant also should take the contention in the written statement, the plaintiff foregone or relinquish the right of claiming the rent after filing the suit. Therefore, the cause of action is one and the same and suit is not sustainable. 16. On the other hand the respondent counsel is contended that earlier suit was only for seeking possession and arrears of rent of two months as on date of filing of suit and issuing the earlier legal notice but the present suit is for different cause of action after the eviction of premises by decree. The arrears of rent/damages payable by the defendant to the plaintiff during the pendency of the earlier suit. Whether non claiming the arrears of rent/damages can be considered as the plaintiff relinquish his right of claim or omitted to claim the damages in the earlier suit thereby hit by Order II Rule 2 of CPC., In this regard it is to mention the illustration referred in CPC. 17. Whether non claiming the arrears of rent/damages can be considered as the plaintiff relinquish his right of claim or omitted to claim the damages in the earlier suit thereby hit by Order II Rule 2 of CPC., In this regard it is to mention the illustration referred in CPC. 17. Sub Section 3 refers that omission to sue for one or several reliefs and the plaintiff is not entitle afterwards for sue any relief so omitted. The explanation says for the purpose of this rule an obligation and a collateral security for its performance and successive claims arising under the same obligation shall be deemed to constitute but one cause of action. The illustration as referred as under; Illustration A lets a house to B at a yearly rent of Rs.1,200/-. The rent for the whole of the years 1905, 1906 and 1907, is due and unpaid. A sues B in 1908 only for the rent due for 1906. A shall not afterwards sue B for the rent due for 1905 or 1907. 18. By referring the illustration the appellant /defendant counsel has submitted there is no relief sought by the plaintiff in the earlier suit for arrears of rent or damages subsequent to the filing of the suit. In my considered opinion the contention of the appellant/defendant counsel cannot be acceptable, as the plaintiff has rightly claimed suit for eviction and arrears of rent of two months at the time of filing of suit. But it is not known to the plaintiff when the plaintiff will succeed in the suit, when the defendant will vacate the premises in order to claim the subsequent arrears of rent or in the name of damages. Therefore after obtaining the decree and eviction of the defendant from the schedule premises the plaintiff has filed the second suit for claiming the arrears of rent. In my considered opinion Order II Rule 2 of CPC., is not applicable to the case on hand as there is no same cause of action arises in both the suits and the relief claimed in both suits also not identical one. In this regard relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And Another Vs ATM Constructions Pvt. Ltd., arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.8292 of 2021. 19. In this regard relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And Another Vs ATM Constructions Pvt. Ltd., arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.8292 of 2021. 19. In the similar situation Hon'ble Apex Court has held the earlier suit was for only for possession and second suit is for claiming mesne profit or damages is not hit by Order II Rule 2 of CPC., at para 14 to 17 as under; 14. Subsequently, a Full Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Sadhu Singh's case (supra) considered the following question: "Whether Order 2, rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, bars a suit for mesne profits filed subsequently to a suit for possession of the property because the claim for those accrued mesne profits had not been earlier included therein." 14.1 The same was answered in negative by majority. 15. The Full Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in Ram Karan Singh's case (supra) was quoted with approval in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Sudera Realty Pvt. Ltd. opining therein that the cause of action claiming mesne profits accrue from day to day and the cause of action is a continuing one. Relevant paragraphs 64 and 15. and 65 thereof are extracted below: "64. The case of the respondent is that the plea of limitation was not pressed before the learned Single Judge and was also not taken up before the Division Bench. It is further contended that a claim for mesne profits involves a liability, which accrues on a day-to-day basis. In this regard, attention is drawn to Ram Karan Singh and others v. Nakchhed Ahir and others, AIR 1931 Allahabad 429, which has been referred to by this Court in the Judgment reported in Raptakos Brett and Company Limited v. Ganesh Property, (2017) 10 SC 643 and we may notice only paragraph-21 of Raptakos Brett and Company Limited (supra): "21. Bench of the Allahabad High Court while examining the issue of maintainability of second suit for pendente lite and future mesne profits where earlier suit for possession and past mesne profits has already been decided has held as follows: (SCC Online All) "It seems to us that the cause of action for recovery of possession is not necessarily identical with the cause of action for recovery of mesne profits. The provisions of Order 2 Rule 4, indicate that the legislature thought it necessary to provide specially for joining a claim for mesne profit with one for recovery of possession of immovable property, and but for such an express provision, such a combination might well have been disallowed. A suit for possession can be brought within twelve years of the date when the original dispossession took place and the cause of action for recovery of possession accrued. The claim for mesne profits can only be brought in respect of profits within three years of the institution of the suit and the date of the cause of action for mesne profits would in many cases be not identical with the original date of the cause of action for the recovery of possession. Mesne profits accrue from day to day and the cause of action is a continuing one, and arises out of on the continued misappropriation of the profits to which the plaintiff is entitled. " (Emphasis supplied) 65. In the said passage, what has been considered, was the issue relating to the maintainability of the second Suit for pendente lite and future mesne profits, in a situation, where an earlier suit for recovery of possession and for past mesne profits had been decided. We notice that what the Court has essentially held is that but for Order IV Rule 2 of the CPC, as it stood specifically providing for joining a claim for mesne profits with one for recovery of possession of an immovable property, such a joining together of claims in one suit, may have been not allowed. It is thereafter stated that a claim for mesne profits can only be brought in respect of profits within three years of the institution of the suit. Still further, it is found that the date of cause of action for action for mesne profits may not coincide with the date of cause of action for recovery of possession. It is thereafter that the statement which is relied upon by the respondent has been made. The Court held that mesne profits accrue from day-to-day, and the cause of action is a continuing one. It arises out of the continued misappropriation of the profits, which a plaintiff is entitled to." 16. It is thereafter that the statement which is relied upon by the respondent has been made. The Court held that mesne profits accrue from day-to-day, and the cause of action is a continuing one. It arises out of the continued misappropriation of the profits, which a plaintiff is entitled to." 16. If considered in the light of the facts of the case in hand, it is undisputed that the respondent-plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property in dispute at present. The lease of the property in favour of the appellants by the predecessors-in-interest of the respondents expired on 31.12.1997. After a prolonged litigation, the possession was handed over to the respondent only in June 2022. The first suit was filed seeking possession of the property. No claim was made regarding mesne profits. Subsequent suit was filed claiming damages for use and occupation of the property from 1998 onwards. 17. In view of the enunciation of law, as referred to above, suit for possession and suit for claiming damages for use and occupation of the property are two different causes of action. There being different consideration for adjudication, in our opinion, second suit filed by the respondent claiming damages for use and occupation of the premises was maintainable. The application filed by the appellants for rejection of the plaint was rightly dismissed by the Courts below. However, the appellants are well within their right to raise the issue, if any part of the claim in the suit is time-barred but the entire claim cannot be said to be so. 20. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein the contention of the appellant /defendant cannot be acceptable. The subsequent suit is hit by Order II Rule 2 of CPC., The earlier suit cause of action is for claiming possession and arrears of rent as on the date of filing of the suit and subsequent suit is for claiming the further arrears of rent or damages after the termination of the tenancy. Merely the same was called in the name of rent that itself is not a ground to reject the prayer of the plaintiff. It was only a wrong name mentioned by the plaintiff as rent instead of mentioning as damages that itself is not a cause for rejecting the suit of the plaintiff. Merely the same was called in the name of rent that itself is not a ground to reject the prayer of the plaintiff. It was only a wrong name mentioned by the plaintiff as rent instead of mentioning as damages that itself is not a cause for rejecting the suit of the plaintiff. Therefore the cause of action in the both suits are not identical one which is for the possession and subsequent suit is for damages after filing of the suit. Such being the case the contention of the appellant is not acceptable. 21. On perusal of the record and evidence on record, the trial court considering the documents especially the lease deed, legal notice, the receipt for having spent for purchasing painting items and made payment for painting works, electricity bill for having paid by the plaintiff for having consumed by the defendant during the occupation of the premises. By appreciating the evidence on record trial court has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Therefore there is no reason whatsoever arises for this court for reversing the judgment of the trial court. Hence, from the view the appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. Hence the following; ORDER The appeal filed by the appellant/defendant is hereby dismissed. No order as to the costs.