CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — S. 100 — Second Appeal — Concurrent findings of fact — landlord–tenant relationship, default in payment of rent, status of tenant, entitlement to eviction and damages — no perversity or misapplication of law — no substantial question of law — Second Appeal dismissed. Suit for eviction and damages (O.S. No. 100 of 2014) decreed by Trial Court; decree confirmed in A.S. No. 13 of 2023. Both Courts below, on appreciation of Exs. A1, A3, A7–A9 and oral evidence, recorded concurrent findings that (i) lease under Ex.A1 and relationship of landlord and tenant are admitted, (ii) there was default in payment of enhanced rent and arrears from October 2004 onwards, (iii) defendant was in possession only as a tenant at sufferance and had no right to continue, and (iv) plaintiff/LR was entitled to eviction and damages as fixed. High Court held that such findings are based on evidence, not vitiated by perversity or misdirection, and that no substantial question of law arose; interference under S.100 CPC was declined. (Paras 7–8, 13–16, 24–25, 30–32)

1. CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — S. 100 — Second Appeal — Concurrent findings of fact — landlord–tenant relationship, default in payment of rent, status of tenant, entitlement to eviction and damages — no perversity or misapplication of law — no substantial question of law — Second Appeal dismissed.
   Suit for eviction and damages (O.S. No. 100 of 2014) decreed by Trial Court; decree confirmed in A.S. No. 13 of 2023. Both Courts below, on appreciation of Exs. A1, A3, A7–A9 and oral evidence, recorded concurrent findings that (i) lease under Ex.A1 and relationship of landlord and tenant are admitted, (ii) there was default in payment of enhanced rent and arrears from October 2004 onwards, (iii) defendant was in possession only as a tenant at sufferance and had no right to continue, and (iv) plaintiff/LR was entitled to eviction and damages as fixed. High Court held that such findings are based on evidence, not vitiated by perversity or misdirection, and that no substantial question of law arose; interference under S.100 CPC was declined.
   (Paras 7–8, 13–16, 24–25, 30–32)

2. TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 — Ss. 106 & 116 — Notice to quit — filing of eviction proceedings and termination of tenancy — tenant at sufferance vs tenant holding over — when notice under S.106 not separately fatal.
   Defendant contended that suit was bad for want of valid notice under S.106 and claimed to be a tenant holding over. On facts, lease under Ex.A1 was for 11 months (vacant land for timber depot); R.C.C. No. 9 of 2003 for eviction was filed and later dismissed on technical grounds; thereafter, landlord issued Ex.A3 notice dated 05-09-2008 demanding vacation on ground of default. Referring to Nopany Investment (P) Ltd. v. Santokh Singh (2008) 2 SCC 728, High Court held that filing of eviction proceedings itself constitutes notice to quit in law and Ex.A3 also manifests intention to terminate. On consideration of rent payments, refusal, and defaults evidenced by Exs. A7–A9 and admissions of D.W.1, Court held that defendant was not a tenant holding over under S.116 but a tenant at sufferance, having no right to continue.
   (Paras 13–18, 20–24)

3. TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 — S. 116 — Tenant holding over — requirement of lessor’s consent and acceptance of rent after expiry of lease — distinction from tenant at sufferance — application of Supreme Court precedents.
   After expiry of the 11-month lease under Ex.A1, and in the face of defaults in payment of enhanced rent, coupled with landlord’s refusal to accept rent and initiation of eviction proceedings, Courts below held that conditions of S.116 were not satisfied. Relying on Sevoke Properties Ltd. v. W.B. State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (2020) 11 SCC 782, R.V. Bhupal Prasad v. State of A.P. (1995) 5 SCC 698 and Nand Ram v. Jagdish Prasad (2020) 9 SCC 393, High Court applied the distinction between a tenant holding over (retaining possession with lessor’s consent and acceptance of rent) and a tenant at sufferance (continuing wrongfully after expiry). Defendant was held to be only a tenant at sufferance and could not invoke “holding over” to resist eviction.
   (Paras 18–24)

4. LANDLORD AND TENANT — Eviction suit by one legal representative / co-owner — Non-joinder of other heirs — maintainability.
   Defendant argued that plaintiff’s mother and sister were not impleaded and suit was bad for non-joinder. High Court reiterated settled law that one co-owner or one of several legal representatives can maintain an eviction suit against a tenant. Referring to India Umbrella Mfg. Co. v. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (2004) 3 SCC 178 and Shankara Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. M. Prabhakar AIR 2011 SC 2161, Court held that a co-owner sues also as agent of the others, and unless other co-owners / LRs object, suit is maintainable. In the case at hand, 2nd plaintiff came on record as LR on the basis of testament; even de hors the will, as one LR he could continue the eviction suit, and no other LR opposed. Plea of non-joinder was rejected.
   (Paras 5(c), 26–28)

5. EVICTION AND DAMAGES / MESNE PROFITS — Quantum — interference in Second Appeal — when unwarranted.
   Trial Court, on scrutiny of evidence including Ex.A7 (admission of rent due from October 2004 to October 2007) and Exs. A8–A9 (I.As regarding rent deposit), held that defendant defaulted in payment of rents and fixed damages at Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of suit till delivery of possession, in addition to Rs.1,20,000/- for January 2011 to December 2012. Appellate Court confirmed. High Court held that fixation of damages was based on evidence and judicial discretion; appellant failed to show any illegality or perversity, and no interference was called for in Second Appeal.
   (Paras 7, 16, 24–25)

6. CIVIL PROCEDURE — Additional evidence in appeal — O.41 R.27 CPC — refusal to receive additional documents — concurrent findings.
   Defendant filed I.A. No. 453 of 2024 before the first appellate Court to receive additional documents. Appellate Court considered the application under O.41 R.27 CPC, discussed it in para 33 of its judgment and dismissed it by separate order giving reasons. High Court noted that both Courts below evaluated the existing evidence and recorded concurrent findings on default, nature of tenancy, entitlement to eviction and damages. No case was made out within the limited scope of S.100 CPC for interference with the refusal to admit additional evidence.
   (Paras 29–30)

7. SECOND APPEAL — Scope — S. 100 CPC — Concurrent findings — when High Court may interfere — reiteration of principles.
   High Court restated that under S.100 CPC, it is confined to substantial questions of law; it cannot re-appreciate evidence merely to substitute its own view; existence of substantial question of law is sine qua non. Interference is permissible only if findings are manifestly perverse, based on inadmissible evidence, or suffer from non-consideration of material evidence. On facts, findings of both Courts below were based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, and no substantial question of law arose; Second Appeal was dismissed without costs.
   (Paras 30–32)

II. STRUCTURED ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW 

1. Background and pleadings (Paras 2–7, 13–16):

   • Plaintiff (since deceased) leased vacant land (suit schedule property) to defendant under unregistered lease deed Ex.A1 dated 26-04-2001 for 11 months at Rs.1,200/- p.m., to run a timber depot with temporary sheds; defendant agreed to vacate after lease period.

   • Plaintiff pleaded subsequent enhancement of rent to Rs.4,000/- p.m. from April 2002 and default thereafter.

   • Plaintiff initially filed R.C.C. No. 9/2003, which was dismissed on technical grounds on 17-03-2005; later issued Ex.A3 notice (05-09-2008) requiring defendant to vacate; then filed O.S. No. 100/2014 for eviction and damages @ Rs.5,000/- p.m. from January 2011.

   • Defendant admitted landlord–tenant relationship; claimed Rs.20,000/- as security deposit; pleaded continuous payment of rent, refusal to accept rent, issuance of his notice seeking bank details, and filing of his own injunction suit O.S. No.33/2009. He also raised objections regarding LRs / Will and non-joinder.

2. Trial and first appeal (Paras 6–8, 15–16, 24–25, 29–30):

   • 2nd plaintiff (LR) examined as P.W.1; Exs. A1–A9 marked. Defendant examined as D.W.1; D.W.2 also examined; Exs. B1–B7 marked.

   • Trial Court decreed eviction; granted one year time to vacate; awarded Rs.1,20,000/- damages for Jan 2011–Dec 2012 plus Rs.5,000/- p.m. thereafter till delivery.

   • Appellate Court, as final fact-finding Court, dismissed A.S. No. 13/2023 and confirmed the decree, also rejecting defendant’s I.A. under O.41 R.27 CPC for additional evidence.

3. Substantial questions in Second Appeal (Paras 9–12):
   High Court framed three substantial questions:
   (1) Validity of notice under S.106 T.P. Act;
   (2) Non-joinder of necessary parties (other heirs / co-owners);
   (3) Liability to pay damages @ Rs.5,000/- p.m. as fixed by Courts below.

4. Notice under S.106 and character of possession (Paras 13–24):

   • Courts noted that R.C.C. No. 9/2003 itself was an eviction proceeding and that Ex.A3 legal notice demanded vacation on default of enhanced rent.

   • Applying Nopany Investment, Court treated filing of eviction proceedings and notice as sufficient expression of intention to terminate tenancy.

   • On facts and evidence (including Exs. A7–A9 and D.W.1’s admission of non-payment of rent between 2007–2009), Court held that conditions for “holding over” under S.116 were absent; landlord had not consented to continued possession nor accepted rent in a manner renewing tenancy.

   • Relying on Sevoke Properties, R.V. Bhupal Prasad and Nand Ram, Court held defendant was a tenant at sufferance, not a tenant holding over, and thus could not resist eviction for want of S.106 notice in the manner contended.

5. Non-joinder and co-owner’s right to sue (Paras 5(c), 26–28):

   • Defendant argued other LRs (mother and sister) were necessary parties.

   • Court relied on India Umbrella Mfg. Co. and Shankara Coop. Housing Society to reiterate that one co-owner / LR can maintain eviction suit; consent of other co-owners is presumed unless they object.

   • Here, 2nd plaintiff came on record as LR on the strength of a Will, and even apart from the Will, as an LR he could proceed; other LRs did not object. Plea of non-joinder was rejected.

6. Damages / mesne profits (Paras 7, 16, 24–25):

   • Trial Court, using admissions in Ex.A7 (acknowledging arrears from Oct 2004–Oct 2007) and the history of defaults, fixed damages at Rs.5,000/- per month.

   • Appellate Court confirmed, and High Court found no illegality, noting that the quantum was based on evidence and judicially exercised discretion; no substantial question of law arose on this aspect.

7. Section 100 CPC — Concurrent findings (Paras 30–32):

   • High Court emphasised that it cannot re-appreciate evidence in Second Appeal; it may interfere only if the concurrent findings are perverse or based on inadmissible evidence, or relevant evidence was ignored.

   • On the record, findings on default, nature of tenancy, validity of termination, co-owner’s right to sue, and damages were all based on appreciation of evidence by both Courts below.

   • No substantial question of law was found; Second Appeal was dismissed without costs and all pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.