Back
T. AMARNATH GOUD
Deshapremik Roy – Appellant
Versus
Amar Ranjan Sarkar – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment dated 09.09.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur in Title Appeal No.05 of 2018 upholding the judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gomati District, Udaipur dated 07.06.2018 in Title Suit No.02 of 2000.
2. The fact of the case is brief are that one Lt. Nishi Kanta Sarkar, the father of the respondent herein was the possessor of the suit land from 1955 and he made some construction therein. After his death, the respondent started possessing the same and in the year 1984, the appellant entered into the possession of the suit premises based on a registered lease deed for a period of two years, where he started a sweet-meet shop which was renewed in the year 1989 for another two years. After the expiry of the said lease period, it was further extended up to 08.08.1991, for two years. Thereafter on expiry of the lease period, the appellant continued the possession of the said premises ignoring the request of the respondent to execute a fresh lease deed for the same. The same premises required some maintenance and the respon
Tenant cannot be evicted without the landlord proving lawful title, and concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are not to be interrupted unless perverse.
A second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure must involve substantial questions of law, and unregistered tenancy agreements cannot establish non-evictable rights.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of continuous possession and the lack of evidence to support adverse possession in property disputes.
Concurrent findings of fact regarding landlord-tenant relationship upheld; second appeal dismissed due to lack of substantial question of law.
A second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code requires the identification of substantial questions of law, which was not demonstrated in this case.
Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts cannot be interfered with unless they are perverse or irrational.
Finding of fact could not be disturbed by Court in Second Appeal.
Adverse possession claims require acknowledgment of the original owner's title; mere long-term possession without proof of acknowledgment negates the claim.
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.
A tenant cannot contest landlord rights while occupying property, and eviction actions can proceed without the property owner as a party.
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
