Second appeal fact-finding under CPC and distinct eviction grounds sustained where tenant failed to vacate unauthorized premises.

In second appeal, the High Court may determine an issue of fact under Section 103 CPC where the lower appellate court has misdirected itself on the legal effect of the evidence, and such intervention remains within the limits of second appellate jurisdiction. The eviction grounds under clauses (m) and (o) of Section 12(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act are distinct and their ingredients cannot be interchanged; clause (o) applies to unauthorised occupation outside the tenancy and failure to vacate after notice. On the facts found, the tenant's failure to vacate the disputed portion and comply with the decree sustained eviction and the related consequence under Section 13.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court, in second appeal, could reappreciate the factual findings and determine issues of fact under Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure where the lower appellate court had misdirected itself on the legal effect of the evidence. (ii) Whether the grounds of eviction under clauses (m) and (o) of Section 12(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 are distinct, and whether the tenant's failure to vacate unauthorisedly occupied portion and comply with the trial court's direction justified eviction.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court, in second appeal, could reappreciate the factual findings and determine issues of fact under Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure where the lower appellate court had misdirected itself on the legal effect of the evidence.

Analysis: The jurisdiction in second appeal is confined to substantial questions of law, and the High Court ordinarily cannot interfere with findings of fact. Section 103, however, authorises the High Court to determine an issue of fact if the evidence on record is sufficient and the issue has not been properly determined by the lower appellate court, or has been wrongly determined because of an error of law within Section 100. Since the first appellate court had failed to decide the relevant issues correctly and had proceeded on an erroneous view of law, the High Court was competent to record the necessary findings on the basis of the material before it.

Conclusion: The High Court acted within its jurisdiction in deciding the factual issues in second appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether the grounds of eviction under clauses (m) and (o) of Section 12(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 are distinct, and whether the tenant's failure to vacate unauthorisedly occupied portion and comply with the trial court's direction justified eviction.

Analysis: Clause (m) deals with unauthorised construction within the tenanted accommodation that materially alters it or diminishes its value substantially, whereas clause (o) concerns possession of accommodation not included in the tenancy and failure to vacate that portion after written notice. The two grounds are mutually exclusive and the requirements of clause (m) cannot be imported into clause (o). On the facts found, the tenant had not complied with the decree and undertaking to vacate the disputed portion, and the landlord's application under Section 13(6) regarding non-payment during the appeal remained unrebutted.

Conclusion: The eviction on the ground under clause (o), and the consequence flowing from default under Section 13, were sustained against the tenant.

Final Conclusion: The interference by the High Court was justified and the decree for eviction and costs was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: In second appeal, the High Court may determine necessary issues of fact under Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure where the lower appellate court has wrongly determined them on an error of law, and the distinct statutory grounds of eviction must be applied according to their separate ingredients.

---