S.K.SETH v. Rajaram
Case at a glance
- Bench
- S K SETH
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. After hearing submissions and going through the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, we find that this appeal does not involve any question of law, much less any substantial question of law which is sine qua non for admission of a second appeal…
Judgment
SINGLE BENCH: HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.K.SETH Second Appeal No. 28 of 2012 Harishankar vs. Rajaram J U D G M E N T (Delivered on 19.12.2012) As per Seth, J: This is tenant’s second appeal. He has suffered a decree for eviction on three grounds: viz, non-payment of rent; inconsistent user; and that the appellant had acquired a suitable accommodation for residence. These grounds are covered by Section 12((1)(a),(c) and (i) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.
At this stage, there is no dispute regarding the suit accommodation and that it was let out to appellant on monthly rent of Rs. 60/-.
Respondent filed an eviction suit against the appellant alleging that he was in arrears of rent which was not paid or tendered despite service of demand notice; that the accommodation in question was let out for residential purposes but the appellant was using it for non-residential purpose; and that appellant had acquired a suitable accommodation for residence in Indore.
Appellant contested the suit. In the written statement except admitted facts, he denied other plaint allegations 1 and submitted that suit should be dismissed.
Trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the parties, dismissed the suit. However, lower appellate Court, by the impugned judgment and decree allowed the appeal and decreed the suit on the three grounds mentioned above. Hence this second appeal by the tenant.
We have heard learned counsel for appellant at length. He contended that none of the grounds for eviction were made out and the lower appellate Court committed serious error of law in passing the impugned decree.
After hearing submissions and going through the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, we find that this appeal does not involve any question of law, much less any substantial question of law which is sine qua non for admission of a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the case in hand lower appellate Court on proper appreciation of evidence found that the respondent had made out grounds for eviction, and as such committed no illegality in passing the impugned judgment and decree. Finding recorded by the lower appellate Court are pure finding of facts and are not open to interference in this second appeal. From the above it seems to us that 8. this appeal has no substance and as such deserves to be and is hereby dismissed summarily. (S.K.SETH. J.) Alok/- 2
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.