advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Saturday, April 15, 2017

the High Court in Second Appeal was not justified in reversing the concurrent findings entered by the first appellate court and trial court in the matter of right to sell and in reversing the admitted position of landlord-tenant relationship as found by the first appellate court and denying eviction. First appellate court is the last court on facts. We find no perversity in the findings of the first appellate court. The said court has found on admission that there was landlord-tenant relationship. After entering such a finding only, the eviction was ordered on the ground of arrears of rent. There is no dispute on these facts. On the right to sell the property by the first respondent’s father, the findings are concurrent. In that view of the matter, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore that of the first appellate court. The respondents are given a period of two months to surrender vacant possession to the appellants. No costs.

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION



                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5823 OF 2008


SATISH CHAND (D) BY LRS. & ANR.           ...  APPELLANT (S)

                                   VERSUS

KAILASH CHAND & ORS.                            ... RESPONDENT (S)




                               J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.:


      Appellant-landlords are aggrieved by the impugned judgment  passed  in
Second Appeal No. 602 of 2002 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at  Indore
whereby the High Court reversed the order of eviction passed  by  the  first
appellate court. The first appellate court had reversed the finding  of  the
Civil Judge, Class II, Sanwad (for short “the trial court”) on the issue  of
landlord-tenant relationship and thus aggrieved, the present appeal.
The appeal is not contested by the respondent-tenants.

The trial court had entered a finding that Vallabhdas, whose heirs  are  the
respondents herein was entitled to  sell  the  property  to  the  appellant-
landlords. There was also  a  finding  that  there  was  no  landlord-tenant
relationship. The  first  appellate  court,  having  regard  to  an  earlier
finding, which was an admitted position in a previous litigation, held  that
there was landlord-tenant relationship. The court granted  eviction  on  the
ground of arrears of rent but declined on the ground of bona fide need.  The
first appellate court also upheld the right of Vallabhdas  to  alienate  the
property to the appellant-landlords and thereafter treating  the  seller  as
tenant. The High Court however, took a different stand and held that it  was
too early for the courts below to  enter  a  finding  as  to  the  right  of
Vallabhdas to sell his property.

Having heard the learned senior counsel for the appellants, we  are  of  the
view that the High Court in Second Appeal was  not  justified  in  reversing
the concurrent findings entered by  the  first  appellate  court  and  trial
court in the matter of right to sell and in reversing the admitted  position
of landlord-tenant relationship as found by the first  appellate  court  and
denying eviction.

First appellate court is the last court on facts. We find no  perversity  in
the findings of the first appellate court.  The  said  court  has  found  on
admission that there was landlord-tenant relationship. After  entering  such
a finding only, the eviction was ordered on the ground of arrears  of  rent.
There is no dispute on these facts. On the right to  sell  the  property  by
the first respondent’s father, the findings are concurrent. In that view  of
the matter, we allow the appeal, set aside  the  impugned  judgment  of  the
High Court and restore that of the first appellate court.   The  respondents
are given a period of two months  to  surrender  vacant  possession  to  the
appellants. No costs.

                                                   .......................J.
                                                             (KURIAN JOSEPH)


                                                                 .……………………J.
                    (R. BANUMATHI)
New Delhi;
April 11, 2017.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.