A second appeal under Section 100 CPC is limited to substantial questions of law; concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed unless perverse or based on no evidence.

Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 - Section 29 - Government Order G.O.Ms.No.2000 dated 16.08.1976 - Exemption for buildings belonging to religious trusts - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Scope of second appeal - Substantial question of law - Concurrent findings of fact - Interference only if perverse or based on no evidence.

(B) Second Appeal - Jurisdiction - High Court in an appeal under Section 100 CPC is strictly confined to cases involving a substantial question of law - It is not permissible to re-appreciate evidence and interfere with findings of fact recorded by courts below unless the decision is perverse, ignores material evidence, draws wrong inferences from proved facts, or wrongly places burden of proof - Right of appeal is not automatic but confined to substantial questions of law - (Paras 3, 4).

(C) Rent Control - Exemption of religious trusts - A diocese of the Roman Catholic Church, being a religious and charitable trust, is entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.2000 exempting its buildings from the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 - Suit for eviction and arrears of rent is maintainable without invoking the Rent Control Act - (Paras 13, 14).

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff (religious trust) filed a suit for eviction, arrears of rent, and mesne profits against the defendant, a tenant running a school in the suit property. The lease deed dated 13.08.2016 fixed monthly rent at Rs.14,000/-. The plaintiff terminated the lease by notice and claimed arrears. The defendant contested, alleging that the suit was not maintainable because the Rent Control Act applied, and that the plaintiff was not a trust entitled to exemption. The trial court decreed the suit; the first appellate court confirmed. The defendant filed a second appeal.

Findings of Court:
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose. The concurrent findings of fact regarding tenancy, arrears, and willful default were based on evidence and not perverse. The suit was maintainable as the plaintiff (R.C. Diocese) is a religious trust exempted under G.O.Ms.No.2000. The defendant was estopped from disputing the rent amount after paying it for years. The defendant failed to produce bank statements or school accounts to prove payments.

Issues: (i) Whether the second appeal involves a substantial question of law? (ii) Whether the suit is maintainable without invoking the Rent Control Act given the exemption for religious trusts? (iii) Whether the defendant's claim of excess rent payment and oral permission for repairs could be sustained?

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court, following the principles in Gurnam Singh and Chandrabhan, reiterated that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in a second appeal unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The first appellate court's findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and legal principles. The exemption under G.O.Ms.No.2000 applies to the plaintiff as a religious trust, and the suit is maintainable. Result : Second Appeal dismissed, confirming the judgments of the trial court and first appellate court. No costs.

JUDGMENT

The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.24 of 2023 dated 28.10.2024 on the file of the IV Additional District Court, Madurai, confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.1117 of 2018 dated 16.12.2022 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Madurai.

2. The appellant is the defendant (hereinafter referred as 'defendant'). The respondent / plaintiff (hereinafter referred as 'plaintiff') filed a suit in O.S.No.1117 of 2018 directing the defendant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit property, to pay arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.2,05,267/- for the period till 08.08.2018, the date of termination of lease and for past and future mesne profits. The defendant filed a written statement and contested the suit. The learned II Additional Sub Judge, Madurai, after framing necessary issues and after full trial, passed the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2022 decreeing the suit with costs by directing the defendant to vacate the suit property and hand over the same to the plaintiff within a month time and to pay Rs.2,05,262/- as arrears of rent and the plaintiff was entitled to conduct separate enquiry for the past and future mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 C.P.C. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant filed an appeal in A.S.No.24 of 2023 and the learned IV Additional District Judge, Madurai, upon considering the materials available on record and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, passed the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.10.2024 dismissing the appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Challenging the dismissal of the appeal, the defendant has preferred the present Second Appeal.

3. At the outset, it is necessary to refer the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court for High Courts in deciding the second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, given in the case of Gurnam Singh (dead) by LRs., and others Vs. Lehna Singh (dead) by LRs. reported in AIR 2019 SC 1441, that the jurisdiction of the High Court in an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is strictly confined to the case involving substantial question of law and the relevant passage is extracted hereunder:

“18. Before parting with the present judgment, we remind the High Courts that the jurisdiction of the High Court, in an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, is strictly confined to the case involving substantial question of law and while deciding the second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, it is not permissible for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence on record and interfere with the findings recorded by the Courts below and/or the First Appellate Court and if the First Appellate Court has exercised its discretion in a judicial manner, its decision cannot be recorded as suffering from an error either of law or of procedure requiring interference in Second Appeal. We have noticed and even as repeatedly observed by this Court and even in the case of Narayanan Rajendran v. Lekshmy Sarojini, (2009) 5 SCC 264, despite the catena of decisions of this Court and even the mandate under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Courts under Section 100 CPC are disturbing the concurrent findings of facts and/or even the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court, either without formulating the substantial question of law or on framing erroneous substantial question of law.”

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrabhan Vs. Saraswati and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1273 has specifically held that right of appeal is not automatic and right of appeal is conferred by statute and when statute confers a limited right of appeal restricted only to cases which involve substantial questions of law, it is not open to the High Court to sit in appeal over the factual findings arrived at by the First Appellate Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court summarized the following principles relating to Section 100 C.P.C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 76019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKARS.Suresh – AppellantVersusRev.Fr.Peter – RespondentC.M.P.(MD)No.19195 of 2025

A second appeal under Section 100 CPC is limited to substantial questions of law; concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed unless perverse or based on no evidence.

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
S.Suresh – Appellant
Versus
Rev.Fr.Peter – Respondent
C.M.P.(MD)No.19195 of 2025