Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1842
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
Robin Phukan, J.
Mustt. Phul Begum, W/o Late Nuruddin Ahmed - Appellant
Versus
On the demise of Abdur Rahman and ors. - Respondents
RSA No. 376 of 2017
Decided On : 06-11-2025
For the Appellant : Ms. S. Sarma.
For the Respondent: Mr. R.P. Sarma, Sr. Adv., Mr. N.N. Upadhyay.
The court reaffirmed that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain appeals on factual determinations under Section 100 of the CPC, as its scope is limited to substantial questions of law.
Headnote:(A) Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 - Section 8 - Appeal under CPC - Tenant eviction - Appellant challenged judgments of lower courts affirming eviction and arrears. Tenant's denial of landlord-tenant relationship was not upheld. Legal standing of appeal discussed. No revisions permitted beyond scope of section 100 of CPC. (Paras 8.1, 8.2, 11)
(B) Rent Control - The court cannot go beyond the framework of Section 100 of the CPC while reviewing the concurrent findings of facts made by lower courts. The appellate court's jurisdiction is limited to substantial questions of law. (Paras 7.1, 7.2)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claimed eviction of the defendant for non-payment of rent since November 1996, with legal proceedings initiated after the defendant failed to vacate upon notice. The defendant claimed a separate tenancy under the original landlord and disputed the plaintiff's right. (Paras 4, 6)
Findings of Court:
The High Court, recognizing the limitations of its appellate jurisdiction under Section 100, found the appeal to be not maintainable as it merely pursued questions of fact rather than substantial law. (Paras 11)
Issues: The main issues pertained to the maintainability of the second appeal and whether the concurrent findings of fact could be probed. (Paras 8, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that it's not justified to interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts regarding facts unless perverse or illegal, emphasizing the framework of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. (Para 11)
Result: Appeal dismissed as not maintainable.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background facts of the case and claims. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments for the appellant regarding ownership and rent. (Para 6) |
| 3. respondent's arguments on high court's jurisdiction. (Para 7) |
| 4. court's observations about the appeal's maintainability. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. conclusion on the appeal's non-maintainability. (Para 11) |
| 6. final order of the court dismissing the appeal. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT :
Heard Ms. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.P. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. N.N. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. In this appeal, under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellant, namely, Mustt. Phul Begum, has put to challenge the judgment and decree dated 03.05.2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh („first appellate court‟, for short), in Title Appeal No. 39/2006.
3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and decree dated 03.05.2017, the learned first appellate court had affirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2006, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Dibrugarh („trial court‟, for short), in Title Suit No. 27/2000, where by the suit of the plaintiff was decreed directing the defendant, her men and agents to be evicted from the suit premises and further directing the khas possession of the same be delivered to the plaintiffs and arrear of rent @ Rs. 250/- per month, with effect from April, 1996 to be recovered from the defendant till she is evicted from the suit premises.
Background Facts:-
4. The background facts, leading to filing of the RSA No. 376/2017, are adumbrated herein below:-
“The plaintiff is the owner and title holder of the suit properties mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant Musstt. Phul Begum came to occupy the house, mentioned in the schedule from the month of April, 1989 as a monthly tenant, according to the English Calendar month, agreeing to pay the rent @ Rs. 130/- per month. It was also agreed that the defendant would vacate the same as and when required by the plaintiff. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the rate of rent was enhanced from time to time and it was enhanced to Rs. 250/- per month from the month of January, 1996. Further contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant had failed to pay the monthly rent from the month of November, 1996 and therefore, she became a heavy defaulter. Apart from the above, it is also contended that the suit premises is required bona-fide for his own use and occupation and in this regard, on 28.11.1998 the plaintiff sent a notice through his Advocate to the defendant asking her to clear the arrear rents and to vacate the suit premises within 31st December, 1998. On receipt of the notice, the defendant met the plaintiff and requested him to allow some time up to 31.01.1999, to vacate the suit premises, which was allowed by him. But even after elapse of such period, the defendant failed to clear the arrear rent nor she had vacated the suit premises and as such, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the suit premises by evicting the defendant/tenant along with recovery of arrear rents and ancillary relief.
The defendant/appellant had contested the suit by filing written statement. She had taken a stand that the suit is not maintainable in law and in facts; the plaintiff has no right to sue; the suit is barred under the principles of waiver and estoppels as well as there is no cause of action for the suit. She had also denied landlord and tenant relationship. It is the contention of the defendant that she came to occupy one of the rooms of barrack typed thatched house owned by one Abdul Rahim (since deceased) situated on a part of the land measuring 2 Bighas covered by Dag No. 51 of P.P. No. 24 under Gabharu pather ward w.e.f. 01.01.1976, agreeing to pay the monthly rent @ Rs. 20 per month. The rent was enhanced from time to time and lastly at Rs. 250/- from January, 1996. Her further contention is that in
