VIKRANT KATHURIA Vs. KANTA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil second appeal coming up for motion hearing is directed against decree and judgment dated 21.10.2003 of Sub Judge, CJM, Udhampur in file No.50/30/Civil, whereby suit for ejectment of appellant, Vikrant Kathuria, from a shop situated at Ward No.3 (near Court premises), Udhampur, was decreed on the premise that the shop was needed by the plaintiff, Kanta Devi, for her husband, who had retired from bank service and wanted to do Bank Consultancy from the shop in question, allowing two months period to the appellant, defendant, to vacate and surrender the possession of shop in question to the landlady, as also against decree and judgment dated 30.09.2004 of District Judge, Udhampur, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the appellant providing three months time to the appellant to vacate the premises.

(2.) APPELLANT seeks to maintain this appeal on the grounds taken in paragraph 2 of the memo of appeal. Paragraph 2 of the memo of appeal reads, thus: -

(3.) SH . S. D. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, opposes the admission of this civil second appeal on the grounds viz., (i) concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts that the suit shop was reasonably required by the respondent, landlady, for the use and occupation of her husband, cannot be questioned by the appellant, tenant, because of the bar enacted by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which permits admission of a civil second appeal only if a substantial question of law arose from the case; (ii) the memo of appeal raises only alleged questions of law rather than substantial questions of law as contemplated by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure; (iii) plea raised by the appellant in memo of appeal stands since settled by a catena of judgments of Honble Supreme Court of India, and as such no interference is required with the impugned decrees; and (iv) the questions framed by the appellant in his memo of appeal do not arise out of facts of the case.