C.P.C.
Anoop C. Agarwal
(Querist) 03 November 2010
This query is : Resolved
"whether the High Court may interfere with the conclusion arrived by the both the courts below (Trial Court as well as district Appeallate Court) on question of finding of Facts (concurrent finding of courts below) which is based on Affidavits under Article 226 (not 227) writ of certorari only and quash judgment of courts below in summary proceeding matter.(Is there any provision under C.P.C.?)
If YES, then any citation of Apex Court?
Parthasarathi Loganathan
(Expert) 10 November 2010
I reproduce the relevant section as under for the benefit of the querist:
Sec 100 of Civil Procedure Code
Second appeal.
(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.
(2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed exparte.
(3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal.
(4) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question.
(5) The appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the respondent shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question :
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law, not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question.]
Anoop C. Agarwal
(Querist) 11 November 2010
Sir,this is Rent control act matter of landlord-tenant dispute.
No second appeal lie as per act.
Brief History (Trial court rejects release application of landlord on bonafide need as well as on hardship.District Appellate court also reject release application on bonafide need that there are two ancestral houses of landlord in other district, BUT interfere in comparative HARDSHIP that no hardship of tenant in case of eviction.
single judge of High Court set-aside both courts judgments and order to evict, said it is immaterial that two houses of landlord in other district, court can not dictate to landlord to whether he live.)
and set aside lower courts order & allowed landlord petition.
SC passed interim stay on eviction in SLP filed by tenant because of concurrent finding of facts by lower courts.
What is the future of this judgment in SLP?
