LEELA SONI AND ORS. versus RAJESH GOYAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 504 · Decided: 03-09-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
LEELA SONI AND ORS. 
V. 
RAJESH GOYAL AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 3, 2001 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961: Section 12(J)(o) and (m). 
Eviction-landlord filed suit for eviction of the tenant on the ground of 
unauthorised construction under S. J 2(J)(o)-Trial court decreed the suit-
However, the first appellate court held that the landlord failed to prove that 
the said construction diminished the value of the suit accommodation 
D substantially as provided under S. J 2(J)(m)-But the High Court, in second 
appeal, decreed the landlord's suit-Correctness of-Held: In the case of 
eviction suit under S. l 2(J)(o) landlord need not prove that the unauthorised 
construction diminishes the value ofsuit accommodation substantially-Hence, 
first appellate court misdirected itselfin reading the requirements ofS. !2(J)(m) 
into S. l 2(J)(o)-High Court rightly decreed the suit. 
E 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Section JOO-Second appeal-Power of High Court-Scope and ambit 
of-Held: High Court cannot entertain second appeal on question of Jae/-
This is so, not only when the High Court may have a different view of the 
F matter but also when the first appellate court records erroneous conclusions 
on questions of fact. 
Section 103-lssue ojfact-Determination of--Power of Hi5h Court-
Scope and ambit of-Held: High Court has power to determine any issue if 
the evidence 011 record is sufficient when (i) that issue has not been determined 
G bot/, by the trial court and the lower appellate court or (ii) that issue has been 
wrongly determined by either or both the courts on a substantial question of law. 
The respondent-landlord filed a suit for eviction against the appellant-
tenant in respect of the suit accommodation on the grounds of default in 
H payment of rent under Section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control 
504 
LEELA SONI v. RAJESH GOYAL 
505 
Act, 1961 and encroach.ment on a portion of land. not let to him and raising A 
construction thereon .under Section 12(1)(0) of the Act. 
The tra·il court decreed the suit But the first appellate court reversed 
the judgment of the trial court on the ground that the respondent failed to 
prove that the construction had diminished the value of the suit 
accommodation substantially as provided under Section 12(1)(m) of the Act B 
However, the High Court in second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of 
Civil Procedure, 1908 confirmed the judgment of the trial court and directed 
eviction of the appellant from the suit accommodation. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the High Court, in C 
second appeal, ought not to have interfered with the findings of fact recorded 
by the first appellate court. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Section 12(l)(m) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, D 
1961 speaks of unauthorised construction within the accommodation let out 
to the tenant, which has materially altered the accommodation to the 
detriment of the landlord's interest or is likely to diminish its value 
substantially. Section 12(l)(o) of the Act talks of unauthorisedly occupying a 
portion or portions of the accommodation not forming part of the tenanted 
accommodation and not vacating the same in spite of written notice of the E 
landlord to the tenant. In the latter case, there is no need for the landlord to 
prove that the nnauthorised occupation of a portion or portions of the 
accommodation not let out to the tenant, is to the detriment of landlord's 
interest or that it diminishes the value of his accommodation substantially. 
(510-F-H; 511-E] 
1.2. The first appellate court not only failed to notice the distinction 
between Section 12(l)(o) and (m) of the Act but also read the requirements 
of clause (m) into Section 12(l)(o) of the Act and misdirected itself. [5ll-E] 
F 
2.1. There can be no doubt that the jurisdiction of the High Court under 
Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is confined to the framing G 
of substantial questions of law involved in the second appeal and to decide 
the same. Section l 00 of CPC provides that no second appeal shall lie except 
on the grounds mentioned in Section 100 of CPC. Thus it is clear that no 
second appeal can be entertained by the High Court on questions of fact much 
less can it interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Lower Appellate H 
506 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.