Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rajendra Suryakant More, was a former employee of the respondent company, M/s Fixolite Wires & Cables Pvt. Ltd. He was provided with a flat (suit premises) during his employment from 3rd April 1996 to 31st May 2004 without any consideration. After his retirement, he failed to vacate the premises, leading the respondents (plaintiffs) to file a suit for recovery of possession and damages at Rs.15,000 per month from 1st June 2004. The trial court partly decreed the suit on 31st January 2014, directing the appellant to hand over possession within two months and ordering a separate inquiry into mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC, but dismissing the claim for damages for three years prior to the suit. Both parties appealed. The Principal District Judge, Nashik, by judgment dated 17th October 2015, dismissed the appellant's appeal and allowed the respondents' cross-objections, granting the entire claim for damages without a separate inquiry. The appellant then filed this second appeal under Section 100 CPC. The High Court examined whether any substantial question of law arose. The appellant argued that the civil court lacked jurisdiction as the suit involved a tenancy issue, but the courts below found that the appellant was not a tenant and that the occupation was permissive. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and not perverse, and no substantial question of law was involved. However, the High Court found that the appellate court erred in allowing the entire claim for damages without a separate inquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC, which was contrary to law. Therefore, the High Court allowed the second appeal in part, setting aside the appellate court's order on damages and restoring the trial court's direction for a separate inquiry. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court considered whether the second appeal involved any substantial question of law. The appellant, a former employee, occupied the suit flat without any right after retirement. The lower courts concurrently found that the appellant was not a tenant and that the civil court had jurisdiction. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose, as the findings were based on evidence and not perverse. (Paras 1-10) B) Property Law - Recovery of Possession - Mesne Profits - Order 20 Rule 12 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The trial court had directed a separate inquiry into mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC. The appellate court allowed the entire claim for damages without such inquiry. The High Court set aside that part, restoring the trial court's order for a separate inquiry, as the appellate court's decision was contrary to law. (Paras 4-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal raises any substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, particularly regarding the jurisdiction of the civil court and the nature of the appellant's possession.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the second appeal in part. The judgment of the Principal District Judge, Nashik dated 17th October 2015 is set aside to the extent it allowed the entire claim for damages without a separate inquiry. The trial court's order dated 31st January 2014 directing a separate inquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC is restored. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- substantial question of law
- recovery of possession
- mesne profits
- Order 20 Rule 12 CPC
- jurisdiction of civil court
- tenancy rights
- employee occupation
