The Supreme Court allowed a civil appeal filed by a septuagenarian landlord against an octogenarian tenant and held that the substantial question of law was entirely a question of fact and not open to adjudication by the High Court in the second appeal.

The appeal before the Apex Court was directed against the judgment of the Orissa High Court allowing the tenant’s appeal.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra asserted, “Additionally, we find that both the Courts below held the relationship of landlord and tenant to be proved between the parties. This, in our view, is a finding of fact which could not be disturbed by the Court in the Second Appeal, as it was not open for the Court to examine the evidence assuming First Appeal jurisdiction, unless the findings returned were perverse.”

Senior Advocate Yasobant Das represented the Appellant while AOR Ramendra Mohan Patnaik represented the Respondent.

Factual background

The dispute inter se the parties was one between the septuagenarian landlord-appellant and octogenarian tenant-respondent over two shop rooms (suit premises), originally owned by one Late Smt. Ashalata Devi. The plaintiff claimed that he is her adopted son and after her death, the plaintiff inherited all her properties, including the suit premises. As per the plaintiff, the suit premises were leased out to the defendant in 1974 without executing a formal lease deed as he had worked as a family servant. The defendant, however, denied the said relationship of landlord-tenant as also the status of the plaintiff being the adopted son, thereby becoming the sole owner of the suit property.

It was alleged that from July 2001 onwards, the defendant stopped paying the rent and the plaintiff issued a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, terminating the defendant’s tenancy and directing him to vacate the suit premises. When the defendant refused to do the same, the plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and damages before the Civil Judge. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and directed the defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff and pay arrears of rent and damages for his unauthorized use.

The defendant’s Regular First Appeal was dismissed. However, his Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 19086 before the High Court was allowed vide the impugned judgment and it was held that the Plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for eviction as well as arrear rent and damage. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

Elucidating on the law principles governing the scope of Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC the Bench said, “To state that, under Section 100 CPC a High Court is not to disturb findings of fact, would be now like stating the obvious” and referring to the judgment in Jaichand v. Sahnulal (2024), it also added, “Yet recently, this Court lamented that despite numerous judgments spelling out the scope of this power, the High Court repeatedly falls in error. The present is another such case.”

In confirming the judgment of the Trial Court, the Bench found the First Appellate Court to have, although, in short, considered the evidence on record, its application to the questions framed by the Court below and returned its findings accordingly.The lower Courts held the relationship of landlord and tenant to be proved between the parties and this was a finding of fact which could not be disturbed by the High Court in the Second Appeal.

As per the Bench, in the present case, the findings of perversity, were in themselves perverse as the defendant was unable to prove his ownership of the subject matter property by way of adverse possession, establishing open, continuous and hostile possession and the plaintiff’s ownership that he claimed to have devolved upon him by virtue of being the adopted son of the original owner was not challenged and, as such, had attained finality. “Hence, it can be concluded that the first substantial question of law is unjustified as it is entirely a question of fact and, therefore, not open to adjudication. On the second aspect too, interference by the High Court in the circumstances was unwarranted”, it noted.

Thus, setting aside the judgment of the High Court, the Bench directed the tenant to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the subject premises within a period of three months. The tenant was further directed to clear all arrears, be it rent, utilities or otherwise, within the same timeframe.

Cause Title: Rabindranath Panigrahi v. Surendra Sahu [Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 333]

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate Yasobant Das, AOR Bhabna Das, Advocate Vishnu Kanth Mundada

Respondent: AOR Ramendra Mohan Patnaik

Click here to read/download Judgment









Justice Sanjay KarolJustice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.