HARI SINGH versus KANHAIYA LAL

HARI SINGH versus KANHAIYA LAL

The High Court erred in interfering with and setting aside concurrent factual findings of the two lower courts relating to sub-letting and nuisance without framing and identifying any substantial question of law as required under Section 100 CPC, as amended. The mere absence of detail in pleadings is not sufficient reason to set aside such findings. The limitation on second appeals is clear and interference is permissible only on substantial questions of law, which were absent in this case. Thus, the decree of eviction passed by the lower courts stands restored.

Parties
Appellant/landlord: Hari Singh; Respondent/tenant: Kanhaiya Lal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 September 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Rajasthan High Court Judgment in S.b.c.s.a. No. 171 of 1995
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment and order of the High Court set aside; decree of eviction by lower courts restored.
Legal Topics
Eviction, Second Appeal, Concurrent Findings of Fact, Jurisdiction of High Court Under Section 100 CPC, Substantial Question of Law, Sub Letting, Nuisance, Default in Payment of Rent
Civil Procedure Landlord Tenant Law Eviction Second Appeal Concurrent Findings of Fact Jurisdiction of High Court Under Section 100 CPC Substantial Question of Law Sub Letting +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hari Singh

Appellant/landlord

Kanhaiya Lal

Respondent/tenant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Rajasthan High Court Judgment in S.b.c.s.a. No. 171 of 1995

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside concurrent findings of fact in second appeal without framing a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
  2. 2 Whether the lack of details in pleadings warranted interference with concurrent findings on sub-letting and nuisance
  3. 3 Whether default in rent payment after provisional enhancement under Section 7 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, could be a ground for eviction

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in interfering with and setting aside concurrent factual findings of the two lower courts relating to sub-letting and nuisance without framing and identifying any substantial question of law as required under Section 100 CPC, as amended. The mere absence of detail in pleadings is not sufficient reason to set aside such findings. The limitation on second appeals is clear and interference is permissible only on substantial questions of law, which were absent in this case. Thus, the decree of eviction passed by the lower courts stands restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment and order of the High Court set aside; decree of eviction by lower courts restored.

Orders

  • The decree passed by the two courts below in favour of the appellant is upheld.
  • The judgment and order of the Rajasthan High Court dated 15th December, 1995, are set aside.