Judgement

JUDGMENT :- These appeals by special leave arise from the orders of the High Court of Delhi dismissing the Second Appeal on the ground that there was no substantial question of law. The only plea on behalf of the appellants was that they were claiming sub-tenancy from Shri Bhure in respect of the different portions of the premises in question. The question whether Civil Court had jurisdiction or not in the facts of this case was a substantial question of law. Therefore, it was submitted that the High Court committed an error of law in not allowing the appeal before it. We are unable to accept this contention. It is clear and established that the respondent is the owner of the premises in question by succession. There is no dispute as to his title. The contention of the respondent was that the appellants were in unauthorised occupation. The two Courts on facts have upheld that contention. The High Court refused to interfere with that finding of fact. If these facts i.e. to say the respondent is the owner of the premises and the appellants are in unauthorised occupation of the premises then only the Civil Court will have jurisdiction to order eviction of the premises in ques