Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Radhyesham Ramkaran Choube, filed four second appeals (Second Appeal Nos. 4, 8, 11, and 16 of 2002) against a common judgment dated 10.08.2001 passed by the District Judge, Buldhana, in Regular Civil Appeals. The appellate court had allowed the appeals filed by the original defendants (respondents herein) and set aside the decree for possession passed by the trial court in Regular Civil Suits. The appellant was the original plaintiff who had sued for possession of suit premises on the ground that the defendants were licensees whose license had been revoked. The defendants contended that they were tenants and that the tenancy had not been validly terminated. The trial court decreed the suits, but the appellate court reversed the findings, holding that the defendants had proved their tenancy and that the plaintiff had failed to prove valid termination. The appellant challenged the appellate judgment in these second appeals. The High Court, after hearing counsel for both sides, noted that the appeals involved similar facts and common evidence. The court observed that the appellate court had recorded findings of fact that the defendants were tenants and that the tenancy was not validly terminated. The High Court held that these findings were not perverse and did not give rise to any substantial question of law. Consequently, the second appeals were dismissed, and the appellate court's judgment was upheld. The court also noted that the appellant had not pressed Second Appeal No. 16 of 2002, which was dismissed as not pressed.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Tenancy - Burden of Proof - In a suit for possession, the landlord must prove valid termination of tenancy and that the tenant is not entitled to protection under the Rent Act - The appellate court found that the defendant proved payment of rent and that the tenancy was not validly terminated - Held that the findings of fact by the appellate court are not perverse and do not give rise to a substantial question of law (Paras 1-10). B) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Under Section 100 of CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence - The appellant failed to show any perversity in the appellate court's judgment - Held that no substantial question of law arises (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court was justified in reversing the trial court's decree for possession on the ground that the tenancy was not validly terminated and that the defendant was a tenant?
Final Decision
All second appeals are dismissed. The common judgment dated 10.08.2001 passed by the District Judge, Buldhana, is upheld. Second Appeal No. 16 of 2002 is dismissed as not pressed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Burden of proof in tenancy
- Termination of tenancy under Section 12 of Bombay Rents
- Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act
- 1947
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Scope of second appeal under Section 100 CPC
