MATTULAL versus RADHELAL

MATTULAL versus RADHELAL

The finding of the First Appellate Court that the respondent did not bona fide require the premises was a pure finding of fact and could not be reversed by the High Court in second appeal unless there was an error of law, which was not present; thus, the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with such a finding.

Parties
Appellant: Mattulal; Respondent: Radhelal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 April 1974
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated 14th August, 1970 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior in Second Appeal No. 48 of 1969
Outcome
Appeal allowed; suit for eviction dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Eviction, Bona Fide Requirement, Jurisdiction of High Court in Second Appeal, Findings of Fact
Rent Control Landlord Tenant Eviction Bona Fide Requirement Jurisdiction of High Court in Second Appeal Findings of Fact

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mattulal

Appellant

Radhelal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated 14th August, 1970 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior in Second Appeal No. 48 of 1969

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent-landlord bona fide required the premises for starting business as dealer in iron and steel materials under section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961
  2. 2 Whether the High Court could interfere with findings of fact made by the First Appellate Court in second appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The finding of the First Appellate Court that the respondent did not bona fide require the premises was a pure finding of fact and could not be reversed by the High Court in second appeal unless there was an error of law, which was not present; thus, the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with such a finding.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; suit for eviction dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Decree for eviction passed by the High Court against the appellant set aside.
  • Suit of the respondent dismissed.