Bhindi Bros. v. Patel

Res judicata did not bar the plaintiff's claims for past due rent and other damages in its suit for breach of a lease, because the plaintiff raised those claims in its prior dispossessory suit and the trial court did not rule on them when it issued a writ of possession for the leased premises.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

On January 5, 2004, the State Court of Gwinnett County entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants Yogesh Patel, Kalpana Patel, Mayur Patel and Sonal Patel. Plaintiff Bhindi Brothers appeals, contending that the trial court erred in concluding that its claims against the Patels for past due rent and other damages were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. We agree and reverse. The relevant facts are not in dispute. On or about July 1, 1996, Bhindi Brothers entered into a lease agreement with the Patels for commercial space in the “Bhindi Center” shopping center located in Decatur, Georgia. The Patels thereafter operated a business known as the “Woodland Restaurant” in the leased space.

The Dispossessory Action. On March 10, 2003, counsel for Bhindi Brothers wrote to the Patels informing them that, as a result of their alleged default under the lease agreement, the lease had been terminated. The letter further demanded that the Patels vacate the premises. On April 4, 2003, after the Patels had not vacated the premises, Bhindi Brothers filed a dispossessory action under OCGA § 44-7-50 et seq. in the State Court of DeKalb County. In the action, Bhindi Brothers asked for the issuance of a writ of possession and also sought recovery of past due rent plus rent accruing up to the date of judgment. The Patels did not answer. Thereafter, on May 13, 2003, the State Court of DeKalb County issued a writ of possession but did not address the claims for past due rent and other damages.

Bhindi Bros. v. Patel

Res judicata did not bar the plaintiff's claims for past due rent and other damages in its suit for breach of a lease, because the plaintiff raised those claims in its prior dispossessory suit and the trial court did not rule on them when it issued a writ of possession for the leased premises.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report