Chand Kumari (dead) through Lrs. Vs. Kantilal & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 7911 of 2001
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 3987 of 2000)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 3987 of 2000)
Petitioner: Chand Kumari (dead) through Lrs.
Respondent: Kantilal & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 7911 of 2001
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 3987 of 2000)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 3987 of 2000)
Judges: D.P. MOHAPATRA & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 31, 2001
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Sections 100 and 103 – Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 – Section 13 (1) (f) – Eviction petition – Second appeal -Scope of the powers of High Court to interfere with the findings recorded by first appellate court – High Court decreeing the suit for eviction reversing the order of first appellate court which held that there did not exist any relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellant and the ~4~ Validity. Held, since either at the time of admission of second appeal or at the hearing thereof, the High Court had not formulated any substantial question of law, the order passed by the court is not sustainable. Matter remitted to the High Court for fresh and expeditious disposal in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court.
Held:
The reasons stated in the judgment of the High Court for interfering with the finding of fact relating to existence or otherwise of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties are not satisfactory, keeping in view the limitations provided under section 100 of CPC. Further, the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants that the question of applicability of section 13 (1) (f) of the Act was not formulated either at the time of admission of the second appeal or at the time of hearing of the case, is borne out from the judgment of the High Court. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the judgment of the High Court has to be set aside and the second appeal restored to its file for fresh disposal in accordance with law after formulating the substantial question of law which in its opinion, may arise in the case. It goes without saying that both parties will be given opportunity of placing their case on the point of formulation of substantial question of law in compliance with the provisions of section 100 (5) CPC. (Para 6)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave is granted.
3. The judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan, allowing the second appeal filed by the plaintiffs and decreeing the suit for eviction of the defendant on the ground of renouncement of the title of the landlord under section 13 (1) (f) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 is under challenge in this appeal filed by the defendant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously urged that the ground under section 13 (1) (f) of the Act was not considered in the appeal inasmuch as no such substantial question of law was formulated by the High Court at the time of admission or hearing of the second appeal. It is the further contention of the learned counsel that on the facts and circumstances of the case emerging from the pleading of the parties and the findings recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court, it was not open for the High Court to disturb the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court which is the final court of fact, to the effect that there did not exist any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties in the suit.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the findings and the conclusion drawn by the High Court as justified and valid within the framework of section 100 read with section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
6. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the judgment of the High Court and relevant portions of the judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court. Without delving further into merits of the case of the parties, we deem it sufficient to observe that the reasons stated in the judgment of the High Court for interfering with the finding of fact relating to existence or otherwise of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties are not satisfactory, keeping in view the limitations provided under section 100 of CPC. Further, the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants that the question of applicability of section 13 (1) (f) of the Act was not formulated either at the time of admission of the second appeal or at the time of hearing of the case, is borne out from the judgment of the High Court. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the judgment of the High Court has to be set aside and the second appeal restored to its file for fresh disposal in accordance with law after formulating the substantial question of law which in its opinion, may arise in the case. It goes without saying that both parties will be given opportunity of placing their case on the point of formulation of substantial question of law in compliance of the provisions of section 100 (5) CPC.
7. The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the High Court in second appeal no. 152 of 1980 is set aside. The case is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal of the second appeal in accordance with law, bearing in mind the observations made in this order. Since the litigation has been continuing for almost 30 years, we would request the High Court to dispose of the second appeal expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave is granted.
3. The judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan, allowing the second appeal filed by the plaintiffs and decreeing the suit for eviction of the defendant on the ground of renouncement of the title of the landlord under section 13 (1) (f) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 is under challenge in this appeal filed by the defendant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously urged that the ground under section 13 (1) (f) of the Act was not considered in the appeal inasmuch as no such substantial question of law was formulated by the High Court at the time of admission or hearing of the second appeal. It is the further contention of the learned counsel that on the facts and circumstances of the case emerging from the pleading of the parties and the findings recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court, it was not open for the High Court to disturb the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court which is the final court of fact, to the effect that there did not exist any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties in the suit.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the findings and the conclusion drawn by the High Court as justified and valid within the framework of section 100 read with section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
6. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the judgment of the High Court and relevant portions of the judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court. Without delving further into merits of the case of the parties, we deem it sufficient to observe that the reasons stated in the judgment of the High Court for interfering with the finding of fact relating to existence or otherwise of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties are not satisfactory, keeping in view the limitations provided under section 100 of CPC. Further, the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants that the question of applicability of section 13 (1) (f) of the Act was not formulated either at the time of admission of the second appeal or at the time of hearing of the case, is borne out from the judgment of the High Court. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the judgment of the High Court has to be set aside and the second appeal restored to its file for fresh disposal in accordance with law after formulating the substantial question of law which in its opinion, may arise in the case. It goes without saying that both parties will be given opportunity of placing their case on the point of formulation of substantial question of law in compliance of the provisions of section 100 (5) CPC.
7. The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the High Court in second appeal no. 152 of 1980 is set aside. The case is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal of the second appeal in accordance with law, bearing in mind the observations made in this order. Since the litigation has been continuing for almost 30 years, we would request the High Court to dispose of the second appeal expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
