Findings on facts by the lower appellate court are final and cannot be reversed unless they are perverse or based on no evidence.

Anil Kumar, J. –

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

2. Facts in brief of the present case are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction that on 1.8.1992 respondents have let out the House no.18-5/396 situated Mohalla Jawahar Ganj, Kasba, Tehsil-Hapud, District-Gaziabad which consists of two rooms and the rent @ Rs.200/- per month has been paid by her uptill 30.06.2005. Thereafter, as per the oral settlement between the parties, the defendants had agreed to sell the house in question to her.

3. On the basis of the averment as made in the plaint, a Regular Suit No.173 of 2005 has been registered before the Civil Judge (J.D.), Hapud, dismissed by order dated 28.05.2013 with a cost of Rs.3000/-.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff-appellant filed an appeal registered Civil Appeal No.125 of 2013 (Smt. Usha Singh vs. Gyan Prakash and other), also dismissed by judgment and decree dated 2.7.2014.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant under Section 100 , C.P.C.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has pressed the appeal mainly on the substantial question of law : -

"Whether a person can be permitted to dispossess any one without adopting due procedure of law ?

Whether the judgment passed by the lower appellate court, contrary to order XLI, Rule 31 C.P.C. Is a judgment in the eye of law ?

Whether a judgment based upon incorrect facts is a judgment in the eye of law ?"

7. Learned counsel for the appellant while pressing the above said question of law submits that the court below has wrongly passed the judgment and decree thereby dismissing the suit.

8. He further submits that there is no evidence on record that the husband of the plaintiff is a tenant of the house in dispute whereas the correct and true fact that the plaintiff-appellant is a tenant in the house in question. So, the suit filed by her to dispossess from the house in question, is maintainable and liabel to be allowed and judgment and decree passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.

9. After hearing learned counsel for appellant, I feel appropriate to decide the substantial question of law, namely, 2 first which has been pressed by learned counsel for the appellant in the present case and in this regard, he submits that appellate court has not followed the provisions as provided under Order 41 Rule 31 C.P.C. While passing the judgment and decree in Civil Appeal No.125 of 2013 (Smt. Usha Singh vs. Gyan Prakash and other). In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court Writ Petition No.613 of 2014 (Lakhmi and 32 others vs. Judgendra Lal & Another). So, the same is liable to be set aside.

10. The submission made by learned counsel for the appellant is totally incorrect or wrong as from the perusal of the judgment and decree dated 2.7.2014 passed by the appellate court, the position which emerges out is that while adjudicating the Civil Appeal No.125 of 2013 (Smt. Usha Singh vs. Gyan Prakash and other), the appellate court has framed to point of determination no.7 which is as follows : -

^^bl vihy ds fofu'p; ds fy, ,dek= fofu'pk;d fcanq ;g mRiUu gksrk gS fd] D;k izfroknhx.k }kjk oknuh dks iz'uxr laifRr ls cyiwoZd csn[ky djus dk dksbZ iz;kl fd;k x;k vkSj ;fn gkWa rks D;k bl vk/kkj ij oknuh muds fo:) fcuk dkuwuh izfdz;k viuk;s csn[kyh u djus dh fMdzh izkIr djus ds fy;s vf/kd`r gS\^^

11. Thus, in view of the above said facts, the position which emerges out is that the appellate court while adjudicating the Civil Appeal No.125 of 2013 (Smt. Usha Singh vs. Gyan Prakash and other) had followed the mandate as given under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. Accordingly, the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant is incorrect and the appellant cannot derive any benefit from the judgment given by this Court in the Writ Petition No.613 of 2014 (Lakhmi and 32 others vs. Judgendra Lal & Another) and the same is not applic