ASHOK KUMAR Vs. KABOOTAR KHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2012 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ladnu, District Nagaur, whereby the learned Magistrate has decreed the suit for eviction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. The appellant is also aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.08.2012 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Deedwana, whereby the learned Judge has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2012 in favour of respondent plaintiff.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff, Kabootar Khana, filed a suit through its Manager, Mr. Bajranglal Agrawal for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and compensation. The respondent-plaintiff claimed that the shop in question had been rented out to the the appellant-defendant. But the appellant-defendant committed default in payment of rent. Thus, a notice for termination of tenancy was given. But the appellant- defendant neither vacated the shop nor paid the arrears of rent. The appellant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and raised objection regarding maintainability of the suit. It was averred that respondent- plaintiff concealed the fact about a compromise which was reached between the parties. It was further claimed that the appellant-defendant was always ready and willing to pay the rent. At the same time, the arrears of rent as claimed by the respondent-plaintiff was disputed. Both the parties produced their oral and documentary evidence before the learned trial Court. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment and decree dated 05.01.2011, the learned trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and directed the appellant-defendant to vacate the suit premises within two months and also to make payment of arrears of rent. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 05.01.2012, the appellant-defendant filed a first appeal before the learned Appellant Court. By judgment and decree dated 16.08.2012, the learned appellate court partly upheld the judgment dated 05.01.2012 passed by trial Court: it granted relief in the enhanced rate of rent for certain period. Hence, this second appeal before this Court.

(3.) A bare perusal of both the impugned judgments clearly reveal that the entire case is based on the facts established by the parties. No substantial question of law arise in the present appeal. According to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after the amendment made in Section 100 C.P.C. the High Court would not be justified in interfering with concurrent finding of facts. In the case of Gurdev Kaur and Ors. V. Kaki and Ors. [(2007) 1 SCC 546], the Apex Court interpreted Section 100 CPC after it was amended in 1976. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: