IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of substantial questions of law in appeals under Section 100 of CPC and upheld the lower courts' decisions based on the evidence and material available on the record.

JUDGMENT :

1.1 Both these appeals, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’) arise from the impugned common judgment and decree dated 29.01.1997 passed by the learned 3rd Joint District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad in Regular Civil Appeal No.31 of 1994 and Regular Civil Appeal No.32 of 1994, whereby the learned appellate Court below has dismissed both the appeals, which were arising from the common judgment and decree dated 31.03.1994 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad in Regular Civil Suit No.903 of 1985, dismissing the same and Regular Civil Suit No.908 of 1985, allowing the same.

1.2 Since the parties, facts, issues, land in question and the arguments are common, with consent of the learned advocates, both these appeals are heard and decided together by this Court today by this common order.

2. The brief facts of the present appeals are as under :

2.1 The appellants are the administrators of Ravinagar purchased land of Survey No.446 & 449 of village Vejalpur and it was divided in 13 final plots and each final plot was further divided in 9 sub-plots. In all 117 plots were made and allotted to the members and the holders of the plots have started the construction on the said plots. Out of the said plots, one final plot No.14 was kept for the common use of all the plot holders which was admeasuring 2000 sq.years and out of the said plot, 132 ft. land was gone into the road. The land in question would be the said common plot.

2.2 The appellants are the plaintiffs of Regular Civil Suit No.903 of 1985. The said suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs suit plot and also restraining the defendants from removing the iron hedges and entering into the suit plot and to start wooden factory or from making any type of construction upon the suit land and also restraining the defendants from allowing any person upon the suit land.

2.3 The respondents have filed Regular Civil Suit No.908 of 1995 for declaration that they are the legal tenant of plot No.14 of Survey No.446 & 449 known as Ravinagar and also prayed to restrain the defendants from taking the possession of the suit land from the plaintiffs and obstructing the plaintiffs from entering into the suit land.

2.4 Both the suits were consolidated and tried together since issues, facts and parties are same.

2.5 The learned trial Court has taken into consideration the various evidence – documentary as well as oral and framed the various issues separately in both the suits and answered them accordingly.

2.6 Ultimately, the learned trial Court has dismissed Regular Civil Suit No.903 of 1985 and allowed Regular Civil Suit No.908 of 1985 and thereby held that the present respondents are the tenant in the suit land and also restrained the present appellants from disturbing the possession of the respondents.

2.7 Being aggrieved, the present appellants have filed appeals against both being Regular Civil Appeals No.31 & 32 of 1994, which are dismissed by the learned appellate Court below on merit.

2.8 It is these judgments and decrees which are challenged by the present appellants – original plaintiffs before this Court in these second appeals.

3. Heard learned advocates.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr. P.K. Shukla for learned advocate Mr. G.C. Ray for the appellants has submitted that the suit preferred by the wife of the respondent is not a house rent possession suit; and that both the Courts below have erred in holding that the amount of Rs.2,000/- paid by the respondent was paid towards the rent of the suit plot; and that near tendering of any amount does not necessarily meant that the said amount was tendered towards the rent of the suit plot; and that both the courts below have erred in declaring that the plaintiff of the Regular Civil Suit No.908 of 1985 – tenant of the whole suit plot as the said plaintiff has pleaded for the