1999 (9) TMI 976 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
2. Default in payment of rent by the respondent.
3. Sub-letting of the premises by the respondent.
4. Creation of nuisance by the respondent.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court in Second Appeal:
The primary issue was whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of the lower courts without framing any substantial question of law. The Supreme Court emphasized that the jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeals is confined to substantial questions of law as per Section 100 CPC. The Court reiterated that the existence of a substantial question of law is a sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. The High Court's failure to formulate any substantial question of law before setting aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts was deemed an error. The Supreme Court cited several precedents, including Panchugopal Barua v. Umesh Chandra Goswami and Kshitish Chandra Purkait v. Santosh Kumar Purkait, to underline the necessity of adhering to the statutory mandate.

2. Default in Payment of Rent:
The appellant challenged the High Court's confirmation of the first appellate court's finding of no default in payment of rent by the respondent. The appellant argued that the respondent had defaulted in paying rent as provisionally fixed under Section 7 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The Supreme Court noted that the appellate court had misconstrued the provisions of Section 7(4) of the Act. However, the Court decided not to delve into this issue in detail, as the findings on sub-letting and nuisance were sufficient to uphold the eviction decree.

3. Sub-letting of the Premises:
The appellant contended that the respondent had sub-let one of the shops and the godown to third parties. The trial court and the appellate court had found in favor of the appellant on this issue. However, the High Court set aside these findings, citing a lack of detailed pleadings and evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's interference was unwarranted as the concurrent findings were based on evidence, and mere lack of detailed pleadings could not justify setting aside these findings. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not have reappraised the evidence without framing a substantial question of law.

4. Creation of Nuisance:
The appellant alleged that the respondent had created a nuisance by obstructing the passage to the appellant's residence with bags of onions and other vegetables. The trial court and the appellate court had upheld this claim, but the High Court reversed these findings. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's interference was unjustified, as the findings of nuisance were supported by evidence, including a commissioner's report. The Court reiterated that the High Court should not have interfered with the concurrent findings of fact without framing a substantial question of law.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and upheld the eviction decree passed by the trial court and the appellate court. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory requirements of Section 100 CPC and reiterated that the High Court should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact without framing and addressing substantial questions of law. The findings on sub-letting and nuisance were deemed sufficient to justify the eviction of the respondent.