The importance of substantial questions of law in Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC and the principles of lease termination, landlord's right to possession, and lease termination notice requirements under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

JUDGMENT :

A dispute between tenant and a landlord is involved in this Second Appeal preferred under Section 100 CPC by the tenant and respondent is the landlord.

2. Landlord filed O.S.No.143 of 2013 before learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur seeking for eviction of defendant/tenant from the plaint schedule property and for delivery of vacant possession of this property to the plaintiff with a direction to the defendant/tenant to pay Rs.1,000/- per day towards damages for use and occupation from the date of suit till the date of eviction and for costs and such other reliefs. After due trial, the suit was dismissed by judgment dated 10.12.2015.

3. Plaintiff/landlord preferred A.S.No.117 of 2016. This was heard by learned XII Additional District Judge-Cum-Family Court, Guntur and after considering the submissions on both sides and on considering the material on record, the learned first appellate Court found merit in the appeal and as a consequence, it set aside the judgment of the trial Court and granted the relief of eviction and recovery of possession but refused to grant the damages prayed for. It granted two months time to the tenant to vacate the premises.

4. It is against that judgment of the learned first appellate Court, the tenant has come up with this Second Appeal.

5. The Second Appeal is not yet admitted and it is heard before admission. In the memorandum of grounds of appeal, the tenant has raised the following points stating that they are the substantial questions of law involved in this Second Appeal.

1. Whether the findings of the appellate Court is perverse and the judgment is based on the sound principles of law and the evidence has been properly considered?

2. Whether the appellate Court properly considered the findings of the trial Court while allowing the appeal by reversing the well considered judgment of the trial Court?

3. Whether the rent mentioned in the lease deed dated bearing No.7576/2012, dated 29.06.2012 for Rs.12,250/- shall be paid as the respondent failed to reconstruct or renovate the old building as per the above lease deed?

4. Can the appellate Court allow the appeal in the absence of proper evidence?

5. Can the appellate Court set aside the filings of the trial Court without assigning proper and cogent reasons?

6. Since a learned Judge of this Court on 08.06.2018 ordered notices to respondents before admission, appearance for respondent/landlord was made and counsel on both sides argued the matter.

7. It has to be kept in mind that the right of appeal is neither a natural nor an inherent right attached to the litigation. It is regulated in accordance with law. A Second Appeal preferred under Section 100 CPC could be admitted only when the appellant satisfies this Court that substantial question of law between the parties arise in this case. A proper test for determining whether a litigation has shown to the court a substantial question of law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons, Ltd v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company, Ltd, 1962 AIR SC 1314. Their lordships held that a proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantial affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by the superior Courts or is not free from difficulty or cause for discussion of alternative views. If the question is settled by the highest Court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd, the question would not be a substantial question of law. In Boodireddy Chandraiah V. Arigela Laxmi, 2007 (8) SCC 155, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India stated that it is not within the domain of the High Court to investigate the grounds