TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court emphasizes substantial questions of law in eviction suit appeal</h1> <h3>SHEEL CHAND Versus PRAKASH CHAND</h3> The Supreme Court held that the High Court unjustifiably interfered with factual findings in an eviction suit where the landlord claimed a bona fide ... = Issues involved: The issues involved in this case include the landlord's claim for eviction of the tenant based on the ground of bona fide personal need for starting a business, the interpretation of Section 100 CPC regarding substantial questions of law in second appeals, and the High Court's jurisdiction in interfering with findings of fact.Eviction Suit based on Bona Fide Personal Need: The landlord filed a suit for eviction against the tenant, claiming the need for the premises for starting a business. The trial court and appellate authority found the landlord's need not genuine. However, the High Court, in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, set aside the findings of fact. The Supreme Court held that the High Court unjustifiably interfered with factual findings, which were based on proper evidence and material. The Court emphasized that the existence of a substantial question of law is essential for High Court's jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC.Interpretation of Section 100 CPC: The learned Single Judge framed a question of law regarding the bonafide requirement of the landlord. However, the Supreme Court noted that the question was not a substantial question of law as required under Section 100 CPC. The Court highlighted that the High Court should formulate substantial questions of law at the initial stage and provide a fair opportunity to the parties. Failure to adhere to these principles may result in denial of natural justice. The Court criticized the High Court for not following the correct procedure and reversing factual findings without proper justification.High Court's Jurisdiction in Interfering with Findings of Fact: The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in reversing the concurrent findings of fact without any perversity, illegality, or irregularity in those findings. The Court emphasized that findings based on proper appreciation of evidence do not warrant interference in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC. Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the eviction suit filed by the landlord. No costs were awarded in this matter.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
