MADANLAL Vs. GOPALDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE decision rendered in this appeal shall govern disposal of other second appeal being S.A. No. 358 of 20002.

(2.) APPELLANT is the defendant. He is the tenant of suit accommodation, who has suffered eviction decree at the instance of his landlord/plaintiff/respondent herein from trial Court as also upheld in first appeal on the ground falling under section 12(1)(p) of the M.P. Accom - modation Control Act. It is this decree based on concurrent finding of fact which is sought to be assailed by the defendant in this second appeal. It arise out of judgment and decree dated 13.5.2002, passed by learned Ist Additional District Judge, Ujjain in C.A. No. 26 -A of 2001 which in turn arise out of Civil Suit No. 5 -A of 2001, decided on 25.7.2001 by IVth Civil Judge, Class I, Ujjain. The questi on that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether it involves any substantial question of law within the meaning of section 100 of CP. Code ?

(3.) IN my opinion, the appeal has no triable issue. It only involves dead question of fact and nothing else. It is, therefore, binding on this Court as a second appellate Court. In order to attract the provisions of section 100 of C.P. Code, what is required is, involvement of substantial question of law and nothing else. Unfortunately, it is not so in this appeal and hence, it is liable to be dismissed in limine.