In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the Court found no substantial question of law warranting interference with the lower courts' finding that the tenant must vacate. The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage despite a lower decree.
Appeal dismissed at admission stage; six months time granted to appellant to vacate premises.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED S.A .No. 584 of 2011
JUDGMENT:
This Second Appeal has been filed aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 28.03.2011 passed in A.S.No. 238 of 2009 by the XIV Additional Chief Judge, (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.8.2008 passed in O.S.No. 176 of 2007 by the III Additional Rent Controller, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad.
Appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit viz., O.S.No. 176 of 2007. The respondent-plaintiff- Syamala Plaza Welfare Committee, is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule premises and the appellant-defendant is the tenant of the plaint schedule property on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 1600/-. It is stated that due to the attitude of the appellant-defendant the respondentplaintiff is not willing to continue the tenancy of the appellant-defendant and therefore he got issued legal notice to the appellant-defendant on 20.12.2004 under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy of the appellant-defendant. The appellantdefendant received the said legal notice on 27.12.2004 but he neither issued a reply nor vacates the schedule premises after expiry of termination of tenancy month. Hence, the respondent-plaintiff filed the suit and the trial Court directed the appellant-defendant to vacate and
handover the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the respondent-plaintiff within three months. Aggrieved by the same, appellant-defendant filed an appeal viz., A.S.No. 238 of 2009 before the appellate authority and the appellate authority dismissed the appeal with costs by confirming the decree and judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal is filed.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant and also perused the entire material made available on record.
I have perused the order impugned. The trial court considered the matter elaborately and decreed the suit. On appeal, the appellate court dismissed the appeal with costs confirming the decree and judgment of the trial Court holding that there are no reasons to interfere with the finding of the trial Court
It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that in the second appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, this Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by both the courts below. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusing the grounds in the memorandum of second appeal, this court is of the view that the substantial questions of law framed in the second appeal involve appreciation of facts and evidence on record, which both the courts below have elaborately considered. This Court cannot once again appreciate the facts and evidence on record, that too, in the second appeal. In the above circumstances, there is no question of law much less substantial question of law, warranting interference with the impugned judgment by
this court.
The Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. However, the appellant-defendant is given six months time to vacate the premises. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________
GHULAM MOHAMMED, J
DATE: 10.06.2011 KA Note: Communicate by wire at party’s costs.
Defendant (Appellant)
Syamala Plaza Welfare Committee (Plaintiff-Respondent)
GHULAM MOHAMMED
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
