give rise to a new cause of action for the successor in interest to plead that they would be at liberty to persist with the same contention through another petition. The Appellate Court was not, in my view, justified in stating that fresh petition was not barred. The principle of res judicata would surely apply, for the landlords' needs now could not be taken to be different from how their predecessors had pleaded, for the death of the predecessor actually reduced the size of the family and even if during the time when the predecessor had filed the petition, all the members of the family were alive and there was no change in circumstances arising except that the elder brother of the family had died, the prosecution of the petition on the very same ground ought to have been taken as barred. I will, therefore, find an additional reason to reject the contention of the landlord that the action for ejectment could not have been favourably considered. I state so by reversing also the finding rendered by the Appellate Court that the petition was not barred.
