BHAG CHAND Vs. PRAMESHWARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the second appeal by the appellant- defendant No. 2 Bhagchand against the judgment and decree dated 20. 5. 2003 whereby learned Additional District Judge No. 4, Kota affirmed the judgment and decree of eviction dated 23. 12. 1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kota City (South) Kota.

(2.) THE original landlord Shri Kotumal filed a civil suit in the year 1988 against the two defendants Manoharlal (respondent No. 7 in this appeal) and Bhagchand (appellant) with the averments that the suit shop was let out to the defendant No. 1 Manoharlal on monthly rent of Rs. 300/ -. Eviction was sought on the grounds of sub-letting of the shop to the defendant No. 2 Bhagchand, and reasonable and bonafide requirement for plaintiff's son. THE defendant No. 1 vide written statement came out with a case that the suit shop was let out to M/s. Manohar Sales Corporation, which was a partnership firm and the defendant No. 1 was one of the partners. Both the grounds of eviction were denied. Similar is the written statement of the defendant No. 2. THEreafter, amended pleadings were also filed.

(3.) I have considered the rival submissions. It is settled law that the High Court in second appeal cannot reappreciate the evidence and interfere with the findings of fact reached by the courts below. The lower appellate court is final in so far as findings of facts are concerned. The only limited ground on which the High Court can interfere in second appeal is that the decision of the lower appellate court is contrary to law. If the finding recorded by the courts below is one of law or a mixed law and fact, the High Court can certainly examine its correctness, but if it is purely on the fact, the jurisdiction of the High Court would be barred unless it is shown that there was an error of law in arriving such finding or that it was based on no evidence at all or was arbitrary, unreasonable or perverse. The finding of fact can be said to be perverse if the same is based on no evidence or based on misreading, wrong reading or non- reading of material evidence on record. The question therefore, arises for consideration is as to whether the findings of the two courts below regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant and sub-letting are perverse?