Rajendra Prasad vs Ashok Kumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 6101 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 477/2001

1. Rajendra Prasad S/o Chironjilal R/o Malak Pada, Badi, Tehsil
Badi, Dist. Dholpur
2. Santosh Kumar S/o Chironjilal R/o Malak Pada, Badi, Tehsil
Badi, Dist. Dholpur
                                                   ----Appellants/Defendants
                                    Versus
Ashok Kumar S/o Rambabu R/o Malak Pada, Badi, Tehsil Badi,
Dist. Dholpur
                                                       ----Respondent/Plaintiff

For Appellant(s)           :    Mr. Manoon Khalid
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Abhi Goyal



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

                                     Order

08/09/2022

1. Appellants-defendants have preferred this second appeal

under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree dated

09.08.2001 passed by Additional District Judge, Dholpur in Civil

Regular Appeal No.17/1998 affirming the judgment and decree

dated 01.10.1994 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Badi in Civil

Suit No.120/1992 whereby the decree for eviction has been

passed in relation to the rented shop on the ground of sublet

tenant.

2. Both courts below have concurrently held that the original

tenant-Rajendra Prasad (appellant No.1 herein) has got alternative

shop and carrying out his business in the name of Garg Kirana

Store and has sublet the rented shop to his brother Santosh

Kumar (appellant No.2 herein). It has concurrently been held that

(2 of 2) [CSA-477/2001]

both brothers are living separately and the possession of rented

shop is exclusively with the sub-tenant Santosh Kumar.

3. In that view of the matter, the substantial question of law

sought to be considered in the present second appeal as the same

requires re-appreciation of evidence as a whole. Once the fact

findings recorded by both courts below may not be said to be

perverse or suffer from any misreading/non-reading of evidence

are not required to be interfered with only to draw a different

view. The view opined by both courts is one of the possible view.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Damodar Lal Vs.

Sohan Devi & Ors. [(2016) 3 SCC 78] has observed as

under:-

"Para 12.....Even if the finding of fact is wrong, that by itself will not constitute a question of law. The wrong finding should stem out of a complete misreading of evidence or it should be based only on conjectures and surmises. Safest approach on perversity is the classic approach on the reasonable man's inference on the facts. To him, if the conclusion on the facts in evidence made by the court below is possible, there is no perversity."

5. That apart the counsel for respondent, on the instructions of

the respondent-plaintiff, submits that during pendency of this

appeal, the rented shop has been vacated and possession has

been delivered to him.

6. In view of above, the second appeal is dismissed.

7. Record be sent back.

8. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

SAURABH/79

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)