9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 939X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... embers of his family; he has six sons, two of whom were unemployed youth and has also a grown-up unmarried daughter besides his nephew who was also unemployed. He wanted to open a shop in the outer room of suit premises just to engage his sons and nephew in the business and that he had no house in that town. The defendant had filed a suit for specific performance in respect of the same property. The trial court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff for eviction and decreed the suit of the defendant filed for specific performance. The plaintiff filed appeals against judgments and decrees passed in both the suits. The first appellate court reversed them. In other words, decreed the suit of the plaintiff filed for eviction and dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plaintiff and as such their relationship as tenant and landlord came to be terminated. However, he continued to pay rent to the plaintiff even after the said agreement of sale on compassionate ground as the plaintiff was very poor and needy person. The suit for specific performance was filed by the defendant in 1987. In view of the dismissal of the said suit, there is no need to say anything more on this aspect. The first appellate court has noticed that the plaintiff in support of his contention of reasonable and bona fide need in his evidence stated that he has got six sons, a nephew, a daughter and his wife whereas he has got only three rooms for residence; his two sons and a nephew were grown up and unemployed for whom he wanted to est ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riginal plaintiff, the bona fide and personal need of the premises for the family members continued. The High Court has upset the finding of fact recorded by the first appellate court, taking a different view merely on re- appreciation of evidence in the absence of valid and acceptable reasons to say that the findings recorded by the first appellate court could not be sustained either they being perverse or unreasonable or could not be supported by any evidence. The High Court neither framed a substantial question of law nor any such question is indicated in the impugned judgment as required under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The approach of the High Court, in our view, is clearly and manifestly erroneous and unsustainable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e evidence and scrutinize the findings recorded by the first appellate court under Section 100 CPC. This approach is plainly erroneous and against law. The High Court was also wrong in saying that the plaintiff did not lead sufficient evidence to establish his bona fide requirement. As observed by the first appellate court and noted above already, there is evidence of the plaintiff, his nephew and the neighbour. The finding of fact recorded by the first appellate court based on evidence could not be interfered with by the High Court, that too in the absence of any substantial question of law that arose for consideration between the parties. We repeat and reiterate this position as stated by this Court time and again. In one such judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
