AMAR SINGH Vs. BANARSI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER having virtually conceded all the points in the Lower Appellate Court and having taken six months time to vacate the premises, the appellant Amar Singh has filed this Second Appeal challenging the judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court. Shri D. P. Chadha, learned counsel for the appellant, has vehementally submitted that several important and substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this Appeal. Shri Jain has opposed the submission of Shri Chadha and argued that on the issue of default in payment of rent, sub-letting and bonafide necessity, the findings recorded by the Trial Court have been affirmed by the learned Lower Appellate Court because the learned counsel for the appellant, who argued the appeal before the Lower Appellate Court, himself realised that there was no merit in the claim made by the appellant and, therefore, conceded that the findings recorded by the Trial Court were correct. Shri Jain argued that in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant before the Lower Appellate Court, the Lower Appellate Court has affirmed the decree passed by the Trial Court. Now it is not open to the appellant to raise same pleas before this Court.

(2.) IN a suit filed by the Respondent No. 1 for rent and ejectment against Laxman Das, Kanhaiya Lal and Amar Singh, the learned Munsiff appreciated the evidence led by both the parties and decided the issues relating to the default in payment of rent, sub-letting, reasonable and personal bonafide necessity of the landlord in her favour & against the appellant. IN the Lower Appellate Court the learned counsel for the appellant conceded that the present appellant was a sub-tenant. He did not make any submission against the findings of default in payment of rent which was recorded by the Trial Court. He also did not make any argument before the Lower Appellate Court on the issue of personal and bonafide necessity of the landlord. The learned Lower Appellate Court has recorded that there was no ground for interference with the findings recorded by the Trial Court and on that basis it affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. The Lower Appellate Court then noted the request made on behalf of the appellant that six months' time be allowed to the appellant for vacating the disputed premises. After taking note of this request, the learned Lower Appellate Court granted six months time to vacate the premises.