1982 Supreme(MP) 349

G. L. Qza, J.
Dhania Bai v. Ramkhilawan.
S. A. No. 68 of 1981 (J); Decided on 7-7-1982.

Headnote:(1) Accommodation Control Act, 1967 (M P) -- S. 72 -- decree for eviction the grounds under -- plaintiff when entitled to -- relationship of landlord and tenant not established -- plaintiff -- not entitled to any decree.

        (2) Evidence Act, 1872 -- Ss. 18 and 176 -- suit for eviction -- defendant admitting to be a tenant in disputed property with a further saying that he has never paid rent to plaintiff -- relationship not established -- such admission is of no consequence and does not operate as estoppel.

        (3) Civil P. C., 1908 -- S. 100 -- finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence -- interference in second appeal not permissible even if appreciation is erroneous.

        Both the Courts below, on the basis of evidence led by parties came to a finding of fact that relationship of landlord and tenant is not established and therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed. Against this, this second appeal was filed as it was contended by the learned counsel that a material piece of evidence (admission made by the defendantd`respondent) was not concerned by the Court below and therefore the judgment could not be maintained.

        Held : In the statement made by respondent Ramkhilawan (DW 1), he has stated :-.

       

        ^^eSa vk/ks fgLls esa fdjk;s ls jg jgk gw¡A**

        It is this statement made by the respondent on the basis of which it was contended that this is an admission and, therefore the Court below omitted to consider This piece of evidence. In the next sentence after this sentence he has further stated that he has never paid rent to the plaintiff and the plaintiff has never demanded any rent from him. This statement appears to be a part of the whole statement made by the respondent and, therefore, it is clear that there is no admission with regard to the plaintiff-appellant that he is a tenant of the plaintiff-appellant. What he has stated is about his status as a tenant but he has not admitted that a relationship of tenancy exist between him and the appellant-landlord. It is, therefore, apparent that this not being an admission of fact which is relevant for the decision of this appeal, it could not be said that the learned Court below did not consider a material piece of evidence. It is not disputed that on the evidence as it stands, the conclusion arrived at by both the Courts below that relationship of landlord and tenant is not established could not be said to be erroneous. Apart from it, this being a second appeal, this Court cannot interfere with The judgment passed by the learned Court below. It is based on a finding of fact after appreciation of evidence. It is clear that even if the Court below committed an error in appreciating the evidence, this Court cannot interfere in view of section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure as it stands. Appeal dismissed.