RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Sudesh Bansal, J.
Smt. Pushpa Mathur W/o Shri Harish Mathur - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Santosh Somani W/o Late Ramjeevan Chitlangiya - Respondent
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 312 of 2016
Decided On : 09-11-2022
CPC - Tenancy - Section 100 CPC - The court upheld the concurrent findings of fact regarding the termination of tenancy and the necessity of the landlord, emphasizing that no substantial question of law was presented for appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a tenant, challenged the eviction decree based on the landlord's claim of necessity and non-payment of rent, following a legal notice terminating the tenancy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that both lower courts correctly determined the landlord's bona fide need for the property and the proper termination of the tenancy, with no substantial legal questions arising.
Issues: Whether the termination of tenancy was valid and if the landlord's necessity was bona fide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are binding unless shown to be perverse or based on misreading evidence.
Result: The second appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose.
Judgment
1. The instant civil second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been preferred by appellant-defendant-tenant assailing the judgment and decree dated 01.06.2016 passed in Civil Regular Appeal No.43/2013 by the Additional District Judge No.1, Sikar whereby and whereunder dismissing the appeal and affired the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2011 passed in Civil Suit No.89/2009 by the Civil Judge (Sr.D.) Dataramgarh, Sikar whereby and whereunder the civil suit for rent and eviction filed by the respondent-landlord has been decreed.
2. Heard learned counsel for appellant, perused the impugned judgments and record.
3. It is not in dispute that the suit property is a residential in nature and situated at Bay, Tehsil Dataramgarh, District Sikar and is in tenancy of the appellant-defendant. The respondent-plaintiff alleging his necessity of the rented property, terminated the tenancy of defendant vide notice dated 15.08.2009. Plaintiff also claimed due rent w.e.f. 20.05.2008 @Rs.200/- per month. The defendant has not disputed the receipt of notice but had denied the alleged necessity of plaintiff and termination of his tenancy.
4. The trial court, vide judgment dated 09.11.2011 decided issue Nos.1 and 2 with the fact finding that the plaintiff is in bona fide and reasonable need of the rented premises and the tenancy of defendant has been terminated by way of serving a legal notice dated 15.08.2009. Further the trial court also held that the defendant has not paid rent since 20.05.2008, therefore allowed the arrears of rent w.e.f 20.05.2008 and passed the decree for eviction. The trial court also allowed the mesne profit from the date of notice for termination of the tenancy i.e. 15.08.2009.
5. Appellant-defendant assailed the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2011 by filing civil first appeal. The first appellate court, after re-appreciation of evidence on record, concurred with the fact finding recorded by the trial court that by serving legal notice dated 15.08.2009 the tenancy of defendant-tenant has been terminated. It is not in dispute that at the time of filing of the suit, the provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 were not applicable on the rented property situated at Bay, Tehsil Dataramgarh, District Sikar.
6. The instant second appeal was preferred on 24.6.2016. There is no stay order on the execution of the impugned decree. On the last date i.e. on 31.10.2022, the second appeal was listed, the counsel for appellant sought time to confirm as to whether the execution of the impugned decree has taken place or not. Today he submits that he has not get any information from his client.
7. Be that as it may, taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and concurrent findings of fact in respective of termination of the tenancy of appellant-defendant by way of serving legal notice dated 15.08.2009, this Court does not find any substantial question of law involved in the present second appeal.
8. The counsel for appellant could not point out any perversity on the part of courts below in recording findings which are based on appreciation/re-appreciation of evidence. In absence of only perversity or when findings are neither based on surmises and conjunctures nor the same give rise to any substantial questions of law. Substantial questions of law is sine-qua-non to exercise the jurisdiction of high court under Section 100 of CPC.
9. In case of Damodar Lal Vs. Sohan Devi [(2016)3 SCC 78], the Apex Court held that even if finding of fact is wrong, that by itself will not constitute a question of law. The wrong finding should stem out of a complete misreading of evidence or it should be based only on conjectures and surmises. The safest approach on perversity is the classic approach on the reasonable man's inference on facts.
10. In case of State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dayal [(2019)8 SCC 637], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a concurrent finding of the fact is binding, unless it is pointed out that it was recorded de hors the pleadi
C. Doddanrayana Reddy and Ors. vs. C. Jayarama Reddy and ors. (2020)4 SCC 659
Damodar Lal vs. Sohan Devi (2016)3 SCC 78
Rajeshwar Vishwanath Mamidwar & Ors. vs. Dashrath Narayan Chilwelkar & Ors.
Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are upheld unless proven to be perverse or legally flawed.
The High Court's jurisdiction in second appeals under Section 100 CPC is confined to substantial questions of law; it should not reassess factual findings.
The court reinforced that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are binding unless proven erroneous, particularly in eviction cases under the Rent Control Act.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove bonafide and reasonable necessity for eviction under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premise (Control of rent and Eviction)....
The court established that eviction can be granted based on bona fide necessity when the tenant's claim of occupying multiple rooms is not substantiated by evidence.
The court upheld the landlord's right to evict the tenant based on the default in rent payment and the landlord's bona fide need for the shop, as provided under the Rent Act.
The burden of proof for subletting under Rent Control laws and the criteria for establishing subletting were the central legal principles established in the judgment.
The landlord is the best judge of his need and the court cannot advise the landlord to compromise his necessity for the benefit of the tenant.
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 requirement....
The tenant's eviction was justified based on the landlord's bona fide need under the Jharkhand Building Act, despite tenant's claims of hardship.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.