Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Abdul Hamed, was the first defendant in Original Suit No. 144/2008 filed by the respondents (plaintiffs) before the Principal Civil Judge, Vijayapura. The suit property, a residential house bearing CTS No. 458 in Ward No. 5 of Vijayapura city, originally belonged to Mohamed Shafi Inamdar, husband of the first plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 to 4. The plaintiffs alleged that the appellant was inducted as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/- and that after Shafi Inamdar's death, the plaintiffs became the owners. The suit sought eviction on grounds of default in payment of rent and subletting without the landlord's consent. The trial court decreed the suit on 11.04.2012, and the first appellate court (Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayapur) dismissed the appeal (R.A. No. 33/2012) on 05.09.2015, confirming the decree. The appellant then filed this Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC. The High Court, after hearing counsel, found that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and did not raise any substantial question of law. The court noted that the appellant failed to prove payment of rent and that subletting was established. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed at the admission stage.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Substantial Question of Law - The High Court dismissed the second appeal as no substantial question of law arose from concurrent findings of fact regarding default in payment of rent and subletting by the tenant. The court held that the findings of the trial court and first appellate court were based on evidence and did not warrant interference under Section 100 CPC. (Paras 1-5) B) Rent Control - Eviction - Default in Payment of Rent - Subletting - The plaintiffs sought eviction of the tenant on grounds of default in payment of rent and subletting without consent. The courts below decreed the suit, and the High Court upheld the concurrent findings, noting that the tenant failed to prove payment of rent and subletting was established. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding default in payment of rent and subletting by the tenant give rise to any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal at the admission stage, holding that no substantial question of law arose from the concurrent findings of fact.
Law Points
- Second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings of fact
- tenant's default in payment of rent
- subletting without consent
- eviction under rent control laws
