J U D G M E N T

Caveat Pet. No.100 of 2022 Discharged.

The caveat petition stands disposed of.

The plaintiff’s suit for ejectment of the defendant from the suit property has been concurrently decreed by both the learned Courts below. Dissatisfied, the defendant has preferred the instant regular second appeal against the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below. The parties hereinafter are referred to as they were before the learned trial Court.

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for ejectment from two storeys out of a three storeyed building situated on the land bearing Khasra No.220/212/5 situated in village Shalaghat, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. The plaintiff pleaded that he was owner of this building. Vide agreement dated 01.10.2010, executed by him through his son and general power of attorney, with the defendant, he had rented out two storeys of the building to the defendant on monthly rental of Rs.9000/- for a period of 11 months commencing from 01.11.2010. As per the agreement, the defendant’s tenancy had come to an end on 30.09.2011. The defendant did not vacate the premises after 30.09.2011 despite several requests made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had also issued legal notice to the defendant on 26.09.2011, which was served upon him on 28.09.2011. In this notice, tenancy of the defendant was terminated w.e.f. 31.10.2011 and the defendant was asked to vacate the premises by

31.10.2011.

3. The defendant, in his written statement, admitted ownership of the plaintiff over the building in question and also the fact that it was rented out to him for a period of 11 months on monthly rental of Rs.9000/-. He, however, denied that the tenancy had come to end on 30.09.2011. Defendant also denied that the tenancy was monthly and commenced from the first day and ended on the last day of the month. The defendant also pleaded that the agreement allegedly executed between the parties was defective as the plaintiff himself had not executed the same, but got it executed through his general power of attorney Madan Lal. It was contended that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant.

4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions. After hearing submissions on behalf of the contesting parties and after appreciating the evidence led by them, the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 19.04.2021 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. This decree was affirmed by learned first appellate Court on 25.02.2022. Being aggrieved, the defendant has now preferred the instant second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure.

5. I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file.

5(i) The principals for entertaining the second regular appeal under the provisions of Section 100 of CPC are well settled. In this regard, it would be beneficial to notice hereinafter in 2020 (10) Scale 168, titled Nazir Mohamed Vs Kamala and Ors., wherein following principles were culled out relating to Section 100 of CPC:-

“37. The principles relating to Section 100 CPC relevant for this case may be summarised thus :

(i) An inference of fact from the recitals or contents of a document is a question of fact, but the legal effect of the terms of a document is a question of law. Construction of a document, involving the application of any principle of law, is also a question of law. Therefore, when there is misconstruction of a document or wrong application of a principle of law in construing a document, it gives rise to a question of law.

(ii) The High Court should be satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law, and not a mere question of law. A question of law having a material bearing on the decision of the case (that is, a question, answer to which affects the rights of parties to the suit) will be a substantial question of law, if it is not covered by any specific provisions of law