Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 13852
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Maneesh Sharma, J
Ramesh Chaturvedi – Appellant
Versus
Ramkishore Sharma – Respondent
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 125/2026
Important Points
Subject
Civil - Rent Control and Eviction
Act Referred
Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950: S.13(3)
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The respondent-landlords filed a suit for eviction of the appellant-tenant on grounds of default in rent payment, bona fide necessity, and subletting. The tenant contended that he was a minor at the time of the alleged tenancy and denied the landlord-tenant relationship, claiming his father was the actual tenant. Both the trial court and the first appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the landlords.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the landlord-tenant relationship was sufficiently established by documentary evidence (an undertaking signed by the appellant). The appellant failed to comply with the court's order for payment of provisional rent. The concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on proper appreciation of evidence, and no substantial question of law was raised to warrant interference under Section 100 of the CPC.
Issues: Whether the lower courts erred in finding the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship and whether a substantial question of law was involved to justify interference in second appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: In a civil second appeal, the High Court is limited to determining substantial questions of law and cannot re-examine findings of fact established by the first appellate court.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ravi Sharma
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of lower court proceedings and facts concerning eviction and rent default. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. evaluation of evidence and affirmation of concurrent findings regarding tenant default. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. scope of jurisdiction under section 100 cpc in civil second appeals. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
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
