RAMCHANDRA Vs. KAMLADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's appeal against the reversing judgment and decree in an eviction suit.

(2.) SUIT accommodation is situated in Narsinghgarh. Suit accommodation is residential situated on the ground floor. There is no dispute as regards the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Plaintiff claimed eviction on three grounds, viz. , Section 12 (1) (a) (e) and (m) of the Act. Defendant in the written statement denied the claim set up in the plaint. Based upon pleading of the parties, Trial Court framed issues and allowed the parties to adduce evidence. Learned Trials Judge, on appreciation of evidence, found in favour of the plaintiff and passed an eviction decree against the tenant vide judgment and decree dated 8-3-2000. Matter was carried in appeal by the tenant and plaintiff also filed cross-objection against the finding recorded by the Trial judge on issue No. 3 and also sought eviction under Section 12 (1) (a) of the Act. During the pendency of first appeal, original tenant died therefore, respondents herein, who are the legal representatives of the original tenant, were brought on record. Learned First Appellate Court allowed the tenant's appeal by reversing findings on grounds under Section 12 (1) (e) and 12 (1) (m) of the Act. By the impugned judgment and decree, Lower Appellate Court partly allowed the cross-objection and directed tenants to monthly rent @ Rs. 350/- from 1-8-1992. Aggrieved by judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court, plaintiff has now preferred this second appeal. The appeal was admitted on 26-8-2003 for final hearing on the following substantial question of law:-

(3.) IN view of the substantial questions of law formulated at the time of admission, learned Counsel confined submission regarding eviction under section 12 (1) (e) of the Act, therefore, we do not have tackle any other issue. However, learned Counsel for the appellant in the alternative submitted that he has already filed an application under Section 100 (5) of the CPC (LA. No. 6996/07) for formulating question of law relating to Section 12 (1) (m) without precisely stating the substantial question of law. In this view of the matter, this court is of the view that the application is devoid of any substance and as such it stands rejected and closed.