BHOLARAM Vs. AMEERCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave by the defendant is directed against a judgment dated July 21, 1971 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court by which the High Court interfered in second appeal and after having set aside the findings of fact by the trial Court and the appellate Court decreed the plaintiff's suit for ejectment. We have gone through the judgment of the High Court as also of the courts below and we find that by and large the High Court seems to have reversed the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the trial Court and the appellate Court and, therefore, prima facie travelled beyond the limits imposed on its jurisdiction under S. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court, however, seems to have justified its interference in second appeal mainly on the ground that the judgements of the courts below were perverse and were given in utter disregard of the important materials on the record particularly misconstruction of the rent note. Even if we accept the main reason given by the High Court the utmost that could be said was that the findings of fact by the courts below were wrong or grossly inexcusable but that by itself would not entitle the High Court to interfere in the absence of a clear error of law,

(2.) Even so, after going through the documents and evidence produced by the parties we are unable to agree with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court.

(3.) The plaintiff's case was that by virtue of a rent note dated June 3, 1963 (Ext. P-1) he had rented out the premises in question, being House No. 1205, Ganjipura Ward, Lordganj. Jabalpur, to the defendant at a rental of Rs. 205/- per month. The plaintiff averred that originally the premises let out were only a room on the ground floor and the newly constructed portion on the first floor which consisted of two rooms as shown in the map as E F G H. The plaintiff's case was that there was an old room on the first floor, shown in the map as I J K L, which was not the subject-matter of the tenancy, but appears to have been encroached upon by the defendant-tenant subsequently sometime in July 1966. This encroachment was, therefore, one of the grounds on which ejectment was sought. Another ground for ejectment was that the defendant had defaulted in the payment of rent as a result of which arrears of Rs. 232.33 had fallen due up to the date of the suit. We might state here that so far as the around of arrears or default of rent is concerned, that was negatived by the Civil Judge and the District Judge and this finding of fact has been fully affirmed by the High Court. We are, therefore, left only with the solitary ground for ejectment relating to the encroachment on the room, shown by letters I J K L made by the tenant after the lease by which he committed a breach of the terms of tenancy and made himself liable to ejectment under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961.