A second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC is not maintainable unless a substantial question of law is involved; the High Court cannot re-investigate purely factual findings determined by the first appellate court, especially where concurrent findings exist regarding rent default and landlord-tenant relationship.

Order

28/03/2026

1. The present second appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant No.1 under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan – I, Jaipur, in Civil Appeal No.04/2021, titled as 'Ramesh Chaturvedi Vs. Ramkishore Sharma & Ors.', whereby the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the impugned judgment and decree dated 09.09.2021 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge & Metropolitan Magistrate No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur, in Civil Suit No. 47/2020 (08/2000) (901/1995) (CIS No.901/1995), titled as 'Ramkishore Sharma & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chaturvedi & Anr.', whereby the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for eviction and arrears of rent was decreed, and the appellant was directed to hand over vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs within a period of one month from the date of passing the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2021. The plaintiffs were also held entitled to arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1,60,440/- from defendant No. 1 at Rs. 420/- per month from 01.11.1989 till the date of passing the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2021.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present civil second appeal are that that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit in respect of the tenanted premises while stating therein that the premises was let out to the appellant on 22.05.1989 at a monthly rent of Rs. 420/-. The plaintiff/respondent further averred that, after taking possession, the defendant-tenant initially paid the rent on time but later committed default. Accordingly, they filed the suit for eviction on the grounds of default in payment of rent, bona fide necessity, and subletting. The plaintiff/respondent also averred that the defendant No.1 executed an undertaking admitting to make payment of Rs. 16,021/- till 16.04.1994, and agreed to pay the balance by 16.08.1994. Despite this, the defendant neither paid the balance nor vacated the suit property, thereby committing default in payment of rent.

3. The appellant/defendant No. 1 contested the suit. He denied taking the suit property on rent and pleaded that his father, Radheshyam Sharma, had been the tenant since 1971. He further stated that he was a minor at the relevant time, rendering the plaintiffs' tenancy story untenable. The appellant/defendant No. 1 also denied default in payment of rent, bona fide necessity, and subletting.

4. It is also pertinent to mention here that the pro-forma respondents/defendants No. 3/1 to 3/5 remained ex parte.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court has framed the following issues:

1- vk;k oknh ,oa izfroknh ds e/; ijLij HkwLokeh ,oa djk; snkj ds lEca/k gS \ --oknh

2- vk;k izfroknh us yxkrkj N% ekg rd fdjk;k vnk;xh uk dj fdjk;k vnk;xh e sa dkuwuh O;frde dj fy;k gS \ -- oknh

3- vk;k oknh dks fooknxzLr ifjlj dh ; qfDr;qDr ln~Hkkoh ,oa futh vko';drk gS \ --oknh

4- vk;k izfroknh us fdjk; s'kqnk ifjlj dks lcyscV dj fn;k gS \ --oknh

5- vk;k rFkkdfFkr fy[kkoV 09-04-94 voS/kkfud gS rFkk mll s lEcaf/kr QkStnkjh izdj.k yfEcr gS] ;fn gka rks okn dk bl ij D;k izHkko gS \

6- vk;k fookfnr ifjlj ds vkaf'kd fu"dklu l s oknh@izfroknh dh vko';drk iw.kZ gksrh gS \

7- vk;k fookfnr ifjlj [kkyh u gksus ;k gksus ij rqyukRed vis{kkd`r dfBukbZ fdl i{kdkj dh gksxh \

8- vuqrks"kA

6. To substantiate the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiffs/respondents examined PW-1 Motilal, PW-2 Suresh Saini, PW-3 Dinesh Arora, and pro