Ramjilal Thawaith v. Ambumal ' on of Chandumal, resident

RESPONDENT Defendant Versus Ambumal ' on of Chandumal, resident of Gupta rjali Korba, Tahsil and Distt. Korba (C.G.) SECOND APPBAL UNDER SECTION 100 -l? THE.CIVIL PROCEDBRE CODE. 1908 S.B. : H^N'BLESHRI N.K^AGA.RWAL^ J P@;SENT :- Shri Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for the appellants. ORAL JUDGMENT (19.07.2012) Heard on admission. This is plaintiffs' second appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC

against judgment and decree dated 21.08.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Korba in Civil Appeal No. 8A/2005 affirming the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2005 passed by the Civil Judge Class 2, Korba in Civil Suit No. 53A/2005.

i) Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under: Plaintiffs/landlords filed a suit for eviction of the respondent, inter alia on the ground of Section 12 (1) (a) and 12 (l)(e) of the M.P./C.G. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961'). The need pleaded by the appellants was that the I ^ appellants need suit premises for the residence of two son of Ramjilal Thawaith. The claim was denied by the respondent/tenant. The trial Court framed issues. Parties led evidence. The trial Court dismissed the suit, finding inter alia, ii)

appellant failed to prove the rent as Rs.200/- per month and also to prove their bona fide need for the residence of two sons of appellant No. 1 - Ramjilal Thawaith.

The plaintiffs preferred first appeal thereagainst. The first appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the entire evidence led, also affirmed the findings recorded by the Court below and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this second appeal.

Shri Manoj Paranjpe, leamed counsel appearing for appellants, submits that the finding recorded by both the Courts below regarding bona fide need of the appellant is perverse.

I have heard Shri Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records of both the Courts below.

A bare perusal of examination-in-chief para 2 of Ramjilal Thaiwaith (P.W.2) would reveal: the appellants want to get suit premises vacated as the defendant is not paying rent. There is no whisper regarding the need of his two sons. In the above state of evidence, it cannot be said that fmding of bona fide need recorded by both the Courts below is perverse.

After going carefully through the evidence adduced in the case, documentaiy as well as oral, I also do not find any infirmity in the concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below. VwSas ";;;'-a-w°-^^ ^-':.'

While dealing with the scope of Section 100 of C.P.C., Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179 in para 12 held thus: It "

The phrase "substantial question of law", as occurring in the amended Section 100 is not defined in the "question of Code. The word substantial, as qualifying law", means —of having substance, essential, real, of important or considerable. sound worth, is to be understood as something in contradistincdon with — technical, of no substance or consequence, or academic merely. However, it is clear that the legislature has chosen not to qualify the scope of "substantial question of law" by suffixing the words "of general unportance" as has been done in many other provisions such as Section 109 of the Code or Article The substantial question of law on which a second appeal shall be heard need not necessarily be a substantial question of law of general importance. In Guran Ditta v. T. Ram Ditta (AIR 1928 PC 172), the phrase question of law" as it was employed in the last clause of the then existing Section 110 CPC (since omitted by the Amendment Act, 1973) caine up for consideration and their Lordships held that it did not mean a substantial question of general importance but a substantial question of law which was involved in the case as between the parties..........." the Constitution. 133(l)(a) of "substantial

12. This Court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal without there being any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Existence of substantial question of law is the sine qua non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended Section 100 of the Code. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants failed to point out any substantial question of law which may arise for determination in the case. In the absence whereof, this Court has no option but to dismiss the appeal.

For the foregoing, the appeal fails and is dismissed summarily.

No order as to costs. Prashaaf Kumar Mishra Judge