The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, ine nign court may ue pteaseJio suspend the operafion of judgment and decree ddtr,a fi rc2l2ozs in n's No. 167 of 2016 on the file of the vllr Additional District and sessions Judge at at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District pending disposal of the second appeal. Counsel for the Appellant : SRl. N KRISHNA SUMANTH Counsel for the Respondent : SRIyLAKNAREDDY The Court delivered the foltowing: JUDGMENT THE TTONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA APPEAL No.197 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri N. Krishna Sumanth, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Y. Lakna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, on admission Perused the er:tire record.

2. This second appeal is preferred aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2025 in A.S.No.167 of 2016 on the file of the VII Additional Dir;trict and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar ('first appellate Court'), wherein the judgment and decree dated 06.05.2016 in O.S.No.28',t of 2012 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar ('trial Court'), whereby suit was dismissed, was reversed by partly allowing the appeal.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are ref-erred as they are arrayed in the present second appeal.

4. The respondent herein filed suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent vlde O,S.No.287 of 2012 and the said suit was dismissed by the trial Cour1. Aggrieved by the same, first appeal in A.S.No.167 of 20[6 was preferred and the said first appeal was partly allowed reversing the judgment of the trial Court by granting relief of eviction and dismissing the RY,J sA 197 202s plea for affears of rent, but granting mense profits from the date of decree in the first appeal. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree in the first appeal, the present second appeal is preferred on the following substantial questions of law: l. whether the appellate court can set aside the judgment of trial court just because different view is possible?

2. Whether the respondent could prove his ownership? 3. Whether the respondent could prove that agreement of sale did not exist between the appellant and the respondent?

4. whether the relief of eviction and recovery of possession can be granted when the fundamental relationship of landlord and tenant is not established?

5. whether the relief of eviction and recovery of possession can be granted in the absence of any evidence of payment of rents by the appellant/defendant?

6. whether the relief of eviction can order to vacate the suit schedule property during the pendency of suit fbr specific performance of the agreement of sale filed by the appellant/defendant?

5. The above substantial questions of law are factual and have no element of substantial question of law. The issue of ownership, existence of agreement of sale between the parties, relationship of landlord and tenant are issues of fbct. The eviction was granted on the basis of ownership. Though, there was no evidence of payment of rents eviction can be granted to the rightful owner and therefore, there is no substantial question of law involved in the said question. Further, the last substantial question is about granting of relief of eviction, when there was a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale which was dismissed and the first appeal was pending. The very fact of filing of suit for specific 2 RY,J sA 197 2025 perforrnance bF the appellant proves acknowledgement of ownership of the respondent/plaintiff over the suit schedule property' Further, dismissal of the said suit sp,ecific performance shows failure on the part of the appellant to prove the a5;reernent of sale or inability to pay sale consideration'

6. Subseqtrently, Iearned counsel for the appellant filed case summary in the present second appeal, wherein he raised the following additional substantial qut:stions of law for consideration in the present second appeal:

1. whether the Lower Appellate court is justitied in reversing the findings of the Trial Court on a pure question-of fact i'c" the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, without finding that the Trial court's judgme:ntwasperverse'basedonnoevidence'oraresultofa misaPPlication of law?

2. Wheiht,r, in a suit for eviction specifically pleaded based on a landlord- tenant relationshiP, a decree for eviction can be granted based on the plaintilfs title atone when the pleaded case has_not been proved, and ihe detendant has raised a tegitimate claim of possession under an agreentent to sell?

3.Whether a plaintiff who fails to prove their pleaded case of tenancy can still be awarded mesne prot-tts, especially when their claim {br arrears of rent has been dismissed? 4.Whether the Lower Appetlate court has committed a substantial error of law by relying o,'r a j.rdgment from a separate proceeding (o.S.No. 1336 of 2o15), which itself is subject to a pending appeal. to decide the present case?

5. Whether a decree for eviction can be passed against an appellant when 1hg|l6rwnseparatesuitforspecificperformanceconcerningthesame property is still sub-judice before the High Court?

7. The first additional substantial question of law is about existence of landlord anrl tenant relationship. The second additional substantial guestion of law is about maintainability of a suit for eviction on the basis of title and the third additional substantial question of law is when there is 3 RY.J sA 197 2025 evidence of payment of rents and appropriateness of granting of mesne profits. The fourth is about relying on a judgment of a separate proceeding and the fifth is about whether decree fbr eviction can be passed when the first appeal with respect to suit for specific perfonnance is pending' g. The first, second and third additionat substantial questions of law are factual in nature. The fourth additional substantial question of law is about relying on a judgment in a separate proceedings and the same is valid when the subject matter and parties are one and the same. A judgment passed by competent Civil Court can be considered with respect to findings of facts given. Lastly, the pendency of appeal arising from a suit for specific performance has no bar in deciding a suit fbr eviction. g. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Hemavathi v' V' Hombegowdal held that High Court can entertain a regular second appeal purely on a 'sub.stantial' question of law not even a question of law or a question of fact. Further, as per the judgment of'this Court in Syed Abdul Quddus v. K. Vijaya Laxmi2, the Apex Court in Gurdev Kaur v' Kaki3 held that the High Court sitting in Second Appeal cannot examine the evidence once again as a third trial Court and the power under Section 100 '(zozs) 5scc442 ' 2024 SCC onLine TS 186 '(zooz) 1 scc 546 4 RY.J sA 197 2025 CPC is very limited and it can be exercised only where a substantial question of la,v is raised and fell for consideration

10. Since the substantial questions of law and additional substantial questions of law raised does not have any element of substantial question of law, there irre no merits in the second appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

11. [n the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of, admission confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2025 in A.S.No.167 c,f 2016 on the file of first appellate Court. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. To, SD/- N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR /TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER

1. The \rlll Additional District and sessions Judge at at L.B.Nagar, Ransa Reddy District (with r".oioJli;;ri"-'- 2. One CC to SRt. N KRTSHNA SUMANTH Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to SRt y LAKNA REDDY Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies ASR /PSL lrtF s ( ( * c 7 t:rfl ,,1)fr * HIGH COURT DATED:11109t2025 JUDGMENT SA.No.197 of 2025 DISMISS]ING TTIE APPEAAL ]KS tof/z_e