Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
1. This is defendants (tenants) second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code questioning the judgment and decree passed by the First
Appellate Court affirming the judgment and decree granted by the trial Court.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants / defendants would submit that the decree passed by the First Appellate Court is unsustainable and bad in law as
perverse finding is recorded by granting the decree and this appeal involves substantial questions of law for determination.
3. The respondents / plaintiffs filed a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent after terminating the tenancy of defendants (the provision of M.P.
Accommodation Control Act, 1961 is not applicable at Saraipali where the suit for accommodation is situated). The defendants set up a plea that they
have perfected their title over the suit land by adverse possession and the suit is barred by limitation. The trial Court after appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence on record has clearly held that the defendants are the tenants of the plaintiffs / landlord at the monthly rent of Rs. 16/- and the
plaintiffs have validly terminated the tenancy of the defendants on 31.08.1990 and the defendants have not perfected their title over the suit land. In
the first appeal the said finding has been affirmed by the First Appellate Court and it has clearly recorded a finding that there is no illegality or
perversity in the finding of the landlord and tenant relationship and termination of tenancy is in accordance with law.
4. In my considered opinion, the concurrent finding recorded by the two Courts below holding the relationship between landlord and tenant is
established and the tenancy is validly been terminated which is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record which is neither perverse nor
contrary to record. As such, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and decree.
5. As a result, the second appeal does not involve any substantial questions of law for determination. Accordingly, the second appeal deserves to be
and is hereby dismissed in limine. No cost(s).
