Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR, J
Lrs of Devilal – Appellant
Versus
Champa Lal – Respondent
ORDER :
(BIRENDRA KUMAR, J.)
1. Heard the parties on the issue of maintainability of this second appeal.
2. Fact of the case is that the plaintiffs/respondents had brought Civil Suit No. 113/1993 against the appellants for ejectment under the provisions of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The suit was on two grounds, first, personal necessity of the plaintiffs and second, the default in payment of rent committed by the tenant. The learned trial Judge did not find a case of personal necessity, however, decreed the suit on the ground of default in payment of rent. The decree was challenged in Civil Regular Appeal No. 6/2001 and the appeal was also ultimately dismissed on 30.11.2024. Section 22 of the said Act bars maintainability of a second appeal. The said provision is being reproduced below:-
“Section 22.- Appeal & Revision- (1) From every decree or order passed by a Court under this Act, an appeal shall lie to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from original decrees and orders passed by such former Court.
(2) No second appeal shall lie from any such decree or order;
Provided that nothing herein contained shall affect the powers of the High Court for R
Second appeals are barred under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, allowing only revisions, as confirmed by the court.
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.
A second appeal against an execution order is not maintainable under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act if it arises out of a matter where second appeals are barred.
The requirement of substantial questions of law and the impact of new tenancy acts on ongoing proceedings must be carefully considered by the court.
The court affirmed that eviction proceedings under the Transfer of Property Act remain valid despite subsequent enactments, provided they were initiated before the new law's applicability.
Under the provisions of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921, a tenant is entitled to maintain the application de hors the pendency or otherwise of the suit for ejectment filed by the landlor....
High Court could not have re-appreciated the evidence and the concurrent findings rendered by the courts below ought not to have been interfered with by the High Court while exercising revisional jur....
Point of law: The effect of Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) CPC was considered in recording such observations. It was not an instance with reference to application of Order XLI Rule 27(1)(aa) CPC. This claus....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
