MD. RIZWAN Vs. SARDAR NIRANJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the appellant and counsel for the caveators, the plaintiffs in the suit. Counsel for the appellant submits that the balance Court -fee has been paid and the other defects will be removed during the course of the day.

(2.) THE plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction of the defendant on the plea that the defendant was a tenant of the building; that the rights of the landlord have come to vest in the plaintiffs; that the defendant had defaulted in payment of rent, that he had sub -let the building and that the building was bona fide required for the own occupation of the plaintiffs. The defendant denied the subsistence of any relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendant. He pleaded that the plaintiffs had no right over the building which he was in occupation or as an agent of one Dr. Mohammed Mustafa.

(3.) NORMALLY , the question whether subsists the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendant, is a question of fact and a decision on such a question may at times depend upon a question of law as well. But in the case on hand, what fell for decision was whether on the materials furnished, the relationship of landlord and tenant subsisted between the parties. In that context, the relevant materials were taken note of by the lower Appellate Court. I do not find that anything irrelevant was taken note of by the Court or anything relevant was omitted to be considered by that Court. As I also find that Court had not misconstrued any of the documents produced before it or had failed to understand the legal implications of any particular document. Thus going by the normal tests applied in such cases, the finding of fact rendered by the lower Appellate Court can not be said to suffer from any substantial error of law justifying interference by the High Court in Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.