Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by the original defendants (tenants) against the concurrent decrees of eviction and mesne profits passed by the trial court and the first appellate court in favor of the plaintiff (landlord). The landlord, Zilla Parishad, Parbhani, through the Block Education Officer, had filed a suit for eviction against the tenants alleging subletting of the suit premises without consent and unauthorized construction. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the decree with modifications to the mesne profits. The tenants appealed to the High Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, arguing that the findings were perverse and raised substantial questions of law. The High Court examined the concurrent findings and held that they were based on evidence and not perverse. The court noted that the tenants had sublet the premises to third parties and made constructions without the landlord's permission. The High Court found no substantial question of law involved and dismissed the appeal, upholding the eviction and mesne profits decree.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The High Court held that concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and first appellate court cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The court found no perversity in the findings that the tenant had sublet the premises and made unauthorized constructions, and dismissed the appeal. (Paras 1-10) B) Rent Control - Eviction - Subletting - Unauthorized Construction - The landlord sought eviction on grounds of subletting without consent and unauthorized construction. The courts below decreed eviction and mesne profits. The High Court upheld the decree, noting that the tenant failed to prove consent and the constructions were without permission. (Paras 2-8) C) Mesne Profits - Determination - The trial court awarded mesne profits at a certain rate, which was modified by the appellate court. The High Court found no error in the appellate court's determination and upheld the modified rate. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding subletting and unauthorized construction by the tenant are perverse or raise substantial questions of law warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, upholding the concurrent decrees of eviction and mesne profits.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- concurrent findings of fact
- substantial question of law
- subletting without consent
- unauthorized construction
- mesne profits
- eviction decree
