The main legal point established in the judgment is that an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC must involve substantial questions of law, and the court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a substantial question of law.

JUDGEMENT/ORDER :

1. The instant Civil Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter, for short 'CPC) is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2011 passed by the District Judge, Poonch (for short, 'The Appellate Court'), in file No. 02/Civil Appeal and judgment and decree dated 04.06.2007 passed by Sub-Judge, Poonch (for short, 'Trial Court'), in file No. 49/Civil.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal would reveal that one Bakshi Bansi Lal (predecessors in-interest of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein) being owner of a shop rented out to one Tarlok Singh- (predecessors in-interest of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 herein) filed a suit for ejectment in respect of the said shop inter-alia on various grounds including on the ground of personal necessity before the trail court against the said Tarlok Singh and one Harbhajan Singh (sub-tenant).

3. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 04.06.2007 holding that the original tenant has handed over the possession of the suit shop to defendant-Harbhajan Singh- (deceased appellant No. 1 herein) who is doing business in the suit shop.

4. Harbhajan Singh (deceased-appellant No.1 herein) challenged the decree and judgment of Trial Court dated 04.06.2007 in an appeal before the Appellate Court arraying the legal heirs/representatives of the original tenant i.e. Tarlok Singh as performa respondent Nos. 6 to 9 whereas the legal representatives of the plaintiff Bakshi Bansi Lal Bhalla on account of his death were arrayed as respondent Nos. 1 to 5. The said appeal got dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.04.2011 by the Appellate Court upholding the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.

5. The legal heirs of deceased original tenant Tarlok Singh did not choose to file any appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 04.06.2007 of the Trial Court.

6. Both the impugned judgments and decrees are being assailed in the instant appeal inter-alia on the following grounds:-

1. That the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2011 passed by the District Judge Poonch whereby the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 04.06.2007 passed by the Ld. Sub Judge Poonch is against law and facts and therefore liable to be set aside.

2. That Lt. Sh. Bansi Lal Bhalla instituted a suit for ejectment of the appellant and Lt. Sh. Tarlok Singh from the shop situated in main Bazar Poonch of which Lt. Sh. Tarlok Singh was the tenant on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 140 since April 1984.

3. That the grounds for ejectment of the tenant included subletting reasonable requirement, violation of the terms of the lease agreement and after considering the pleading of the parties the Trial Court framed following issues.

7. Following questions are being proposed to be as "substantial questions of law" in the memo of the appeal:-

i. That whether the concurrent findings of the first appellate court on issue No. 1 is contrary to the mandate of S. 11(1)(c) of Houses and Shops Rent Control Act in terms of which the tenant can be evicted on the ground of sub letting only if he has sub let the whole or major portion of the shop for more than seven consecutive months. When the issue framed is that the plaintiff that the tenant in this case has sub let only southern corner of the shop.

ii. Whether the requirement of the plaintiff (now dead) who admittedly owns five shops all in Poonch town could be held reasonable and bonafide as compared to the requirement of the appellant.

iii. Whether the courts below have erred in deciding issue No. 6 holding the appellant as a trespasser when he has been impleaded as defendant in the suit as a sub tenant.

iv. Finding of the Trial Court on issue No. 5 is contrary to the settled law, that after the expiry of the contractual period, the tenant becomes a statutory tenant by operation of Houses and Shops Control Act.

v. Whether the courts below have erred in holding tha