VIJAY PRAKASH GUPTA Vs. MOHINDER KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 15.12.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, sitting as First Appellate Court, thereby dismissing the appeal of the appellant-defendant. The respondent-plaintiff herein had filed a suit against the appellant praying mandatory and perpetual injunction as well as recovery of Rs.1,000.00 on the allegations that the appellant who is a tenant in respect of two rooms on the first floor and a tin shed on the second floor had removed the tin shed and covered the entire roof including the area of the tin shed by raising construction and shifted the tin shed on the top without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff-respondent sought removal of the said illegal structure and injunction in regard to further construction. The suit was defended by the appellant on the ground that the tenanted portion comprise of the accommodation on the first floor, second floor and also the tin shed on the third floor with roof in front of the tin shed. Parties went on trial and both the courts below have returned concurrent finding of fact that only two rooms measuring 10"Xll" each, a kitchen measuring 5"X8", a bathroom and a latrine on the first floor and a pucca tin shed on the second floor besides a sayaban measuring 5"X10" was only rented out to the appellant and the appellant had removed the said tin shed on the second floor and covered the entire second floor by constructing pucca roof. This was on the basis of the documents evidence led and the report of the local commissioner who inspected the spot soon after the filing of the suit.

(2.) . Learned counsel for the appellant seeks to assail the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that the same is based on improper appreciation of the evidence and material brought on record in as much as the courts below failed to consider the question that whatever unauthorised construction was made by the appellant had already been removed by the appellant/MCO and therefore there existed no unauthorised construction in the tenanted premises on the date of the suit. It is also contended that the courts below have failed to consider the question of locus of the plaintiffs to file the present suit inasmuch as the appellant had denied the existence of any Hindu Undivided Family and Yogeshwar Nath Gupta being its Karta or that the plaintiffs were his landlords. According to the learned counsel several questions of law as detailed in the Memorandum of Appeal arise in this Second Appeal.

(3.) . This Court after having considered the matter in its entirety is of the opinion that basically the appellant wants to challenge the concurred findings of fact returned by the courts below and that too on wholly untenable premises. It is well established that the Jurisdiction of the High Court is confined to entertain only such Second Appeals which involve a substantial question of law specifically set out in the memorandum of appeal and formulated by the High Court. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the view that no substantial question of law is involved in this Second Appeal. The judgment and decree passed by the courts below cannot be said to be based on no evidence or improper appreciation of the evidence and material brought on record. This Second Appeal being devoid of any merits is accordingly dismissed.