9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 1325 - HC - Indian LawsDecree of possession of the tenanted premises - recovery of arrears of rent alongwith interest - recovery of mesne profits/damages alongwith interest - HELD THAT - In C. VENKATA SWAMY VERSUS H.N. SHIVANNA (D) BY L.R. ANR. ETC. 2017 (12) TMI 1843 - SUPREME COURT , the Supreme Court held that right to First Appeal against a decree under Section 96 CPC is a valuable legal right of the litigant. The jurisdiction of the First Appellate Court is very wide and all findings of fact and/or law can be assailed by the Appellant. It is the duty of the First Appellate Court to appreciate the entire evidence and arrive at its own independent conclusion, for reasons assigned, either of affirmance or difference. Provisions of Order XLI Rule 31 CPC mandate that the Appellate Court shall state the points for determination and the 'reasons' for the decision. It has been held in several judgments that it is the bounden statutory duty of the First Appellate Court to give reasons for the decision, which form the soul of the judgment. In the process of adjudication, it is implicit that reasons are clearly spelt out as the term 'adjudicate' is not an abstract term and while deciding the issues arising for determination, the judgment must reflect the mind of the Court and the factors that weighed as well as the law applied, in order to come to a conclusion that it does. Without any discussion or reasons in the Appellate order, the Appellant would never know why the Court disagreed with his contentions and concurred with the judgment impugned. The Supreme Court in the landmark decision of SANTOSH HAZARI VERSUS PUROSHOTTAM TIWARI 2001 (2) TMI 131 - SUPREME COURT held that the judgment of an Appellate Court must reflect its conscious application of mind and record the findings supported by the reasons on all the issues arising along with the contentions put forth and pressed by the parties for decision of the Appellate Court. In the present case, there can be no two opinions that the First Appellate Court has dismissed the first appeal and concurred with the judgment of the Trial Court, both on facts and law. However, going by the dictum of the Supreme Court, the First Appellate Court was required to give its own reasoning on the questions of law raised, based on the facts and circumstances before it. It is crystal clear from a mere reading of the impugned judgment that except for citing the submissions made by the parties, the findings and the conclusions of the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court has not dealt with the contentions raised by the Appellant and has not even given any 'reasons' for concurring with the findings of fact and law given by the Trial Court as also the reasons why the contentions of the Appellant challenging the judgment of the Trial Court were devoid of merit - Whilst it is a matter of record that the suit in question was instituted by Respondent No. 1 in 2015 and remanding the matter back to the First Appellate Court would cause some delay in deciding the disputes between the parties and learned counsels have also argued on the merits of the matter, however, this Court has no option on account of the limited jurisdiction to entertain and decide only substantial questions of law and given the law that the issues of facts and law can only be tested by the First Appellate Court. This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence or consider the arguments based on pleadings and questions of law which are not substantial. Moreover, that would deprive the Appellant of valuable right of her case being tested by the First Appellate Court on the anvil of questions of facts and law - once this Court finds that the judgment of the First Appellate Court is bereft of reasons and does not even deal with the contentions of the Appellant including the fact that the judgments relied upon are not even referred to, this Court has no option but to remand the matter back to the First Appellate Court for hearing and deciding afresh. The impugned judgment and decree dated 23.01.2021 passed by the First Appellate Court is set aside. The case is remanded back to the First Appellate Court for hearing and deciding the First Appeal afresh, in accordance with law - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to possession of the premises. 2. Entitlement to arrears of rent. 3. Entitlement to mesne profits/damages. 4. Compliance with procedural requirements by the First Appellate Court. Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to Possession of the Premises: The Trial Court found that the Appellant, who had raised the defense of protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act (TPA) during the final arguments, had not pleaded this in the Written Statement. The court held that for the benefit of Section 53A to apply, the defendant must plead possession taken in part performance of the contract, which the Appellant failed to do. The Trial Court also noted that the Agreement to Sell dated 22.11.1994 did not mention the fate of the tenancy, and the Appellant did not show willingness to perform her part of the contract. The First Appellate Court concurred with these findings without providing independent reasoning. 2. Entitlement to Arrears of Rent: The Trial Court partially favored Respondent No. 1, awarding Rs. 27,000/- for arrears of rent for the period from 01.08.2014 to 30.01.2015, along with interest at 12% per annum. The First Appellate Court upheld this finding without independent reasoning. 3. Entitlement to Mesne Profits/Damages: The Trial Court awarded mesne profits/damages at different rates for different periods post-termination of the tenancy, based on the legal notice dated 22.11.2014. The First Appellate Court upheld this finding without independent reasoning. 4. Compliance with Procedural Requirements by the First Appellate Court: The Appellant argued that the First Appellate Court's judgment was unreasoned and cryptic, lacking independent findings or discussion on the contentions raised. The court merely restated the Trial Court's findings and expressed general agreement. The Appellant cited several judgments, which the First Appellate Court did not mention or consider. The High Court emphasized that the First Appellate Court must provide reasons for its decision, reflecting conscious application of mind and addressing all issues and contentions raised by the parties. The High Court found that the First Appellate Court failed to discharge its duty under Section 96 and Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, necessitating a remand for fresh hearing and decision. Conclusion: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the First Appellate Court’s judgment, and remanded the case for fresh hearing and decision, emphasizing the need for a reasoned judgment addressing all issues and contentions. The First Appellate Court was directed to decide the case within six months, uninfluenced by the High Court’s observations.
|
