RAM HARAKH YADAV Vs. KAMALA PANDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the appellant, I am not satisfied that any substantial question of law arises in this case. The questions of law sought to be relied by the learned counsel stand concluded by findings of fact and have in any case, been settled by the decisions of this Court and of other courts. They are also hit by the provisions of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Both the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the appellant was a licensee of the plaintiff respondent having been allowed to occupy the accommodation as an employee of the plaintiff and her predecessors. The license having been duly terminated, a decree for possession has been passed against appellant.

(2.) SRI Sankatha Rai learned counsel for the defendant appellant submitted that on the own plea of the plaintiff both in the present suit as well as the previous suit filed by the defendant against the plaintiff respondent for injunction, the defendant would be deemed to have acquired the status of a tenant and consequently the suit should have been dismissed. It was urged that the plaintiff respondent had asserted in the previous suit that the present defendant appellant was in occupation of the disputed house as her employee.

(3.) THIS plea was not raised in either of the two courts below. The plea is not one which is purely of law. It at once raises the issue whether the defendant was allowed to occupy the building as part of his contract of employment. Consequently, it cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in second appeal.