Does a decision in an earlier non-user suit bar a later non-user suit?

No. Each suit rests on a different time period. A fresh period of continuous non-user creates a new, distinct cause of action.

Why was Section 10 CPC inapplicable here?

Section 10 requires the matter in issue to be directly and substantially the same. Different non-user periods mean the issues are not identical.

Did the Supreme Court order a joint trial of all suits?

No. It set aside the stay and left it open to the parties to request a consolidated hearing before the trial court, which must decide per law.

Is this res judicata?

Not when the causes of action differ. Res judicata needs identity of issues. Separate non-user periods defeat that identity.

aspi jal v khushroo rustom dadyburjor 2013 4 scc-333

Aspi Jal v. Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjor

Supreme Court of India 2013 (2013) 4 SCC 333 Civil Procedure & Rent 6–8 min read

Author: Gulzar Hashmi • India

Primary: Res Judicata, Section 10 CPC, Non-User Eviction

Secondary: Stay of Suit, Small Causes Court, Distinct Cause of Action

Published: 22 Oct 2025

Slug: aspi-jal-v-khushroo-rustom-dadyburjor-2013-4-scc-333

Quick Summary

The landlord filed three eviction suits: two in 2004 (bona fide need/acquisition and non-user earlier years) and another in 2010 (fresh non-user for the six months just before filing). The trial court stayed the 2010 suit under Section 10 CPC; the High Court agreed. The Supreme Court set the stay aside: each non-user period is a different cause of action, so Section 10 doesn’t apply. Parties may ask the trial court to hear suits together, but that is for the trial court to decide.

Issues

Does the decision in an earlier non-user suit operate as res judicata in a later non-user suit?
Can Section 10 CPC stay a later suit when the periods of alleged non-user are different?

Rules

Section 10 CPC: Stay applies only if the matter in issue is directly and substantially the same in both suits.
Distinct Causes: Non-user for different time windows creates separate causes of action; Section 10 is inapplicable.
Res Judicata: Requires identity of issues/time; changing facts over time defeat identity.

Facts (Timeline)

Owners of “Hanoo Manor”, Mumbai; tenant originally inducted on ₹355/month.

6 Nov 2004: Two suits filed—(1) bona fide need & alternate accommodation; (2) non-user for several prior years.

22 Feb 2010: Third suit—non-user for at least six months immediately before filing.

Trial court stayed the Third Suit under Section 10 CPC; High Court affirmed (2011–2012).

Supreme Court: stay set aside; Section 10 not attracted; parties may seek joint hearing before trial court.

Timeline of the three suits: 2004, 2004, and 2010—different non-user periods

Arguments

Appellants (Landlords)

2010 suit is based on a new six-month non-user period; not the same matter.
Section 10 and res judicata do not apply to different time windows.

Respondent (Tenant)

Issues overlap; multiple suits risk duplication; stay justified.
Earlier suits should conclude first to avoid conflicting findings.

Judgment (Held)

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. Because the non-user grounds related to different periods, Section 10 CPC did not apply. The stay of the 2010 suit was set aside. The Court left it open for the parties to request a joint trial; if sought, the trial court must consider it in accordance with law.

Gavel and calendar blocks showing distinct non-user periods

Ratio Decidendi

For Section 10 CPC, identity of the matter in issue is essential; different time frames break that identity.
Res judicata cannot apply where facts are based on fresh, subsequent non-user.

Why It Matters

Eviction grounds like non-user evolve with time. This case lets landlords act on new defaults without being blocked by earlier litigation over older periods.

Key Takeaways

Different time periods = different causes of action.
Section 10 CPC stay requires identical issues—rare in rolling non-user claims.
Courts may consider joint trial for efficiency; not mandatory.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: NEW TIME, NEW CASE

Identify the period alleged.
Ask: Is it later than before?
If yes, Section 10/res judicata usually don’t bar the suit.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Can a later eviction suit on non-user be stayed under Section 10 CPC because earlier suits are pending?

Rule: Section 10 needs same matter in issue; fresh non-user windows create new causes.

Application: 2010 suit targets immediate six months; earlier suits target older periods → issues not identical.

Conclusion: Stay set aside; parties may seek joint trial; trial court to decide per law.

Glossary

Section 10 CPC: Provision to stay a later suit when the matter in issue is directly and substantially the same.
Res Judicata: A final decision bars re-litigation of the same issue between the same parties.
Non-User (Rent Law): Ground for eviction based on not using the premises for a continuous statutory period.