Landlord and Tenant – Eviction suit – Concurrent findings Where ownership of the plaintiffs and tenancy of the defendants are admitted and both the courts below have, on appreciation of evidence, decreed eviction and arrears of rent, such concurrent findings cannot be re-appreciated in second appeal. (Paras 2–4)

advocatemmmohan

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100

Second Appeal – Scope – Substantial question of law

Second appeal is not maintainable where the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have recorded concurrent findings of fact and the appellant fails to demonstrate the existence of any substantial question of law warranting interference.
(Paras 4–5)

---

Landlord and Tenant – Eviction suit – Concurrent findings

Where ownership of the plaintiffs and tenancy of the defendants are admitted and both the courts below have, on appreciation of evidence, decreed eviction and arrears of rent, such concurrent findings cannot be re-appreciated in second appeal.
(Paras 2–4)

---

Second Appeal – Admission stage – Dismissal

In the absence of any substantial question of law, the High Court is justified in dismissing the second appeal at the stage of admission itself without issuing notice for final hearing.
(Para 5)

---

Equitable relief – Time to vacate premises

Even while dismissing the second appeal, the High Court may, in exercise of equitable discretion, grant reasonable time to the tenant to vacate the premises, particularly when the tenant is carrying on business in the suit property.
(Para 6)

---

Execution of decree – Liberty to decree-holders

On failure of the tenant to vacate within the time granted by the High Court, decree-holders are at liberty to initiate execution proceedings for eviction and recovery of possession.
(Para 6)

---

ANALYSIS (ISSUE-WISE)

1. Nature of the Litigation

The suit was filed by the plaintiffs seeking eviction of the defendants from the plaint schedule property, delivery of vacant possession, and recovery of arrears of rent with interest. The Trial Court decreed the suit, and the First Appellate Court confirmed the decree.
(Paras 2–3)

---

2. Findings of the Courts Below

The High Court noted that:

• Ownership of the plaintiffs was not disputed.

• Existence of landlord-tenant relationship was also not denied.

• Both courts below, on appreciation of evidence, recorded concurrent findings that the defendants were tenants liable for eviction and payment of arrears.
  (Paras 3–4)

---

3. Scope of Interference in Second Appeal

The Court reiterated the settled principle that a second appeal under Section 100 CPC lies only on a substantial question of law. The appellant failed to demonstrate any such question. The appeal merely sought re-appreciation of facts, which is impermissible.
(Paras 4–5)

---

4. Dismissal at Admission Stage

Since no substantial question of law arose for consideration, the High Court declined to admit the second appeal and dismissed it at the admission stage itself.
(Para 5)

---

5. Grant of Time on Equitable Considerations

Notwithstanding dismissal of the appeal, the Court considered the fact that the appellant was running a supermarket in the suit premises and granted four months’ time to vacate, balancing equities between the parties.
(Para 6)

---

6. Consequence of Non-Compliance

The Court clarified that if the appellant fails to vacate within the granted time, the plaintiffs are entitled to initiate execution proceedings for eviction and recovery of possession.
(Para 6)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. A second appeal under Section 100 CPC is not maintainable against concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, unless a substantial question of law is made out.

2. Re-appreciation of evidence or challenge to factual conclusions is impermissible in second appeal.

3. In the absence of a substantial question of law, the High Court can dismiss the second appeal at the admission stage.

4. Even while dismissing a second appeal, the High Court may grant reasonable time to the tenant to vacate the premises on equitable considerations, without affecting the decree-holders’ right to execute the decree on default.