Holding

The existence of a substantial question of law is a sine qua non for the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC; in its absence, the Court cannot set aside findings of fact.

Summary

The landlord (Hari Singh) sued his tenant (Kanhaiya Lal) for eviction on grounds of rent default, sub‑letting and nuisance, and also sought fixation of standard rent under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The trial court decreed eviction finding default, sub‑letting and nuisance; the appellate court upheld sub‑letting and nuisance but set aside the default finding. The Rajasthan High Court, in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, reversed the lower courts’ findings on sub‑letting and nuisance and restored possession, doing so without formulating a substantial question of law and on the basis that the pleadings lacked specific details. The Supreme Court held that, post‑1976 amendment, a second appeal can be entertained only if a substantial question of law exists; lack of detailed pleadings can be remedied by evidence and is not a ground to overturn factual findings. Consequently, the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court set aside its order, reinstating the decree of the lower courts in favour of the landlord.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the second appeal under Section 100 CPC without a substantial question of law.
Whether the absence of detailed pleadings can justify setting aside the lower courts' findings of fact.
Whether the findings of sub‑letting and nuisance can be interfered with on merits in a second appeal.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 100, s. 96, s. Order 6 Rules 4 and 5
Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950s. 13, s. 6, s. 7

Subjects

second appealSection 100 CPCsubstantial question of lawjurisdictionevictionsub‑lettingnuisancepleadingsevidencelandlord‑tenant

Judgment

A HARI SINGH
ll.
KANHAIY A LAL

SEPTEMBER 7, 1999

B [AP. MISRA AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:

Section 100-Second appeal-Substantial question of law-Existence
C of-Eviction-8uit for-Lower Courts decreed suit on grounds of default,
sub-letting and nuisance-High Court, in second appeal, without framing a
substantial question of law, set aside the concurrent findings offacts of the
Lower Courts-Held: The jurisdiction of High Court in second appeal is
limited by Legislature-Hence, challenge in second appeal has to be confined
within limits under S. l 00-The purpose of amending S. l 00 by Amending Act
D of 1976 is based on public policy to bring finality to litigation at some point
of time and to put limits on the jurisdiction of High Court under S. 100-
In the circumstances of the case. High Court erred in setting aside the
concurrent findings of facts without framing a substantial question of law
and by reappraisal of evidence-Further it is neither a case of no evidence
E nor a perverse finding.
Section 100 and Order 6 Rules 4 and 5-Second appeal-Pleading-
Lack of details in-Held: Cannot be a reason to set aside concurrent findings
of fact-Details, if necessary, can be supplemented through evidence.

p Sections 96 and 100-First appeal, second appeal or revision-Right
of-Held: Is neither natural nor inherent and is only to the extent conferred
by Legislature.

Legal Maxims:

"Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium "-Meaning of
G
The respondent-tenant took two shops and a godown on a certain
monthly rent from the appellant-landlord. The appellant filed a suit for ,.
eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent, sub-letting and nuisance.
Within one week the appellant also filed another suit for fixation ofstandard
H rent under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction)
216
HARI SINGH v. KANHAIYA LAL 217
Act, 1950. The Trial Court fixed provisional standard rent at a higher rate A
per month under Section 7 of the Act. The respondent deposited rent at the
said higher rate for 10 months and thereafter defaulted. These facts were
duly incorporated in the plaint by way of amendment The appellant pleaded
that the respondent was also liable to be evicted on the ground of default in
payment of the standard rent.
B
The Trial Court struck out the defence of the respondent under Section
13(5) on account of the respondent's failure to deposit provisional standard
rent fixed under Section 7. The Trial Court decreed the suit for eviction by
holding that the respondent committed default in payment of rent, had sub-
let the premises and created nuisance. The Appellate Court upheld the C
eviction on the ground of nuisance.and sub-letting but set aside the finding
of default under Section 13(l)(a).

The High Court in second appeal, without framing a substantial question
of law, set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts and directed
restoration of possession to the respondent The High Court held that specific D
details have not been incorporated in the pleading and that the Lower Court
findings were contrary to the evidence on record. The finding of the Appellate
Court of no default by the respondent was, however, not disturbed by the High
Court. Hence this appeal.

On behalf of the appellant it was contended that neither a substantial E
question of law was framed nor did it arise in the case and, therefore,
interference in second appeal by the High Court under Section 100 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 wa~ without jurisdiction.

Allowing the appeal, the Court
F
HELD : 1. The jurisdiction of Courts in first appeals, second appeals
or revisions is to the extent conferred by the Legislature. No litigant possesses
any natural or inherent right to appeal against any order, unless a statute
confers and it is to the extent it is conferred. Thus area to challenge is also
hedged by the Legislature. Hence, challenge to the impugned order has to G
be confined within such limitation. How Legislature limits such right could
be visualised from Section 96 and Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 as it stood prior to the amendment by the Amendment Act 1976 (104
of 1976) and as it stands after this amendment. [222-A-C]

2. The purpose for amending Section 100 by the aforesaid Amending H
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Act was to further limit the jurisdiction of the High Court. Prior to the
amendment the interference could have been where an order is contrary to
law or some usage having the force of law. But now it could only be if any
substantial question of law arises. The words 'substantial question of law',
brought in have significance, not superfluous. So now interference cannot
be only because order is contrary to law, but when the disputed issues raise
B substantial question of law. Creation of powers or limiting such powers in
the appellate authorities is always a decision based on public policy expressed
in the maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium. This policy brings to
finality some issues or litigation at some point of time. If no appeal is
provided, the original order becomes final. Thus it is open for the Legislature
C to bring finality to the adjudication on question of facts upto the stage of first
appeal and limit the second appeal to question of laws or to the substantial
question of law or such other limitation which the legislature deems fit and
proper. [222-G-H; 223-A-C)

3. The scheme of Section 100 CPC clearly reveals the intent of
D Legislature to limit the exercise of power of the High Court under Section
100. Thus existence of a substantial question of law is the sine qua non for
the exercise of power by the High Court under this Section. [224-A-B)

Panchugopal Barua v. Umesh Chandra Goswami, [1997)4 SCC 713;
Kshitish Chandra Purkait v. Santosh Kumar Purkait, [1997)5 SCC 438;
E Ram Prasad Rajak v. Nand Kumar & Bros., (1998)6 SCC 748 and Kondiba
Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Giujar, (1999) 3 SCC 722, relied on.

4. The details, if any, can be supplemented through evidence. Mere lack
of details in the pleading cannot be reason to set aside concurrent finding
of facts. The finding recorded on sub-letting and nuisance by both the courts
F below being based on evidence on record, setting aside it by reappraisal of
evidence, and in any case without framing any substantial question of law by
the High Court cannot be sustained and further no substantial question of
law arises. It is neither a case of no evidence nor a perverse finding.
[226-C-F)
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10756 of
1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 15.12.95 of the Rajasthan High
Court in S.B.C.S.A. No. 171 of 1995.
H
HARi SINGH v. KANHAIYA LAL [MISRA, J.] 219
Aruneshwar Gupta for the Appellant. A
Sushil Kumar Jain and P.C. Jain for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

MISRA, J. The issue raised in this appeal arises under the Rajasthan B
Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act'). The appellant is the landlord and respondent is the tenant. The
question raised by the appellant is, whether the High Court was right in
setting aside the concurrent finding of facts in second appeal? In other
words, whether there existed Cl;llY substantial question of law and the High C
Court without framing any substantial question of law was justified in interfering
with the concurrent findings of both the courts below? The appellant also
challenges that part of the order of the High Court confirming the first
appellate's court order which holds no default in payment of rent by the
respondent. In short, the suit of the landlord was for the eviction of the
respondent on grounds of default in payment of rent, sub-letting of the D
premises in question and creating nuisance which was decreed. The Appellate
Court confirmed the finding of sub-letting and nuisance but set aside the
finding of default. In second appeal the High Court confirmed first appellate
court finding that there is no default but set aside the concurrent findings that
the respondent sub-letted the premises and created a nuisance. E

In order to appreciate the controversy raised we deliver the following
short facts.

The respondent took two shops and one godown along with Chabutra
being a portion of House No.2131, Subji Mandi, Johri Bazar, Jaipur, at a F
monthly rent of Rs. 45 per month with Rs. 5 per month for water charges. The
case of the appellant-landlord is that respondent sub-letted one of the shops
to one Mohd. lshaq and sub-letted the godown to one Hamid. This apart, he
failed to pay the rent for a period of about 2 years and 11 months totalling
Rs 1750. He also blocked the 11 feet wide entrance which is the only passage G
for the appellant for going to his residence by placing the bags of onion and
other. vegetables on both the side of the passage. In fact it blocks about 8
feet passage leaving hardly 3 feet which is causing serious nuisance to the
appellant. On 15th February, 1977 a notice was served on the respondent
followed by filing a suit on 12th January, 1978 for eviction from the said
premises on the ground of default in payment ofrent, sub-letting and nuisance. H
220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Within one week on 19th January, 1978 the appellant also filed another suit
for fixation of standard rent under Section 6 of the aforesaid Act. On 3rd May,
1978 the Trial Court in the later suit fixed provisional standard rent at Rs. I 00
per month under Section 7 of the said Act w.e.f. 12th January, 1978. The
respondent as a consequence of the same deposited rent at the said rate for
the period 12th January, 1978 to 16th September, 1978. However, the respondent
B defaulted in paying the rent at this rate for a period subsequent to 17th
September, 1978~ This fact was incorporated in the plaint through an amendment
to his plaint which was allowed and the same was incorporated as para 5 (A)
of the said plaint. This amendment pleads default of payment of rent for a
period subsequent to the said provisional fixation of rent and consequential
C liability for eviction under Section 7 (4) of the Act.

According to the respondent, the Trial Court on 13th April, 1978
determined the provisional rent at Rs. 45 per month under Section 13(3) of the
said Act hence determination of provisional standard rent under Section 7·on
3rd May, 1978 would only means fresh redetermination or modification of the
D amount payable under Section 13 (3) has to be made before consequence of
eviction is to be implemented. On the other hand counsel for the appellant
stressed that the Trial Court struck out the defence of the respondent under
section 13(5) on account of his failure to deposit provisional rent as fixed
under Section 7. The appeal against this was also dismissed by the appellate
E authority on 5th August, 1983. Even revision petition was also dismissed by
the High Court on 18th February, 1987. Thus this order became final as it was
not challenged before this Court. Repelling this submission of finality, learned
counsel for the respondent submits that the revisional order itself left the
matter open to be raised later, hence there was no need to challenge the
revisional order. Reliance is placed on the following observations in the said
F revisional order:

"I am of the opinion that the various questions and issues raised
before this court in revision under Section 115 C.P.C. deserves to be
decided in an appeal finally if it becomes necessary to file the same
by the tenant... ...... "Any adverse order is passed against him earlier
G which is appea!able then these complicated questions of facts an4
law, cakulations promotions and combination of Hindi and English
Calendar months, can be decided there in appeal."

The Trial Court finally decreed the suit for eviction by holding that the
respondent had committed default in payment of rent w.e.f. Vaisakh Bud
H Akum Sambat 2032 till date of filing of suit, he had also sub-letted the
HARi SINGH v. KANHAIYA LAL [MISRA, J.) 221

premises and created nuisance in the entry passage for the plaintiff-landlord. A

- The appellate authority dismissed the appeal of the respondent by upholding
his eviction on the ground ofnuisance and sub-letting under Sections l3{l)(d)
and 13(1)(e) respectively, but set aside finding of default under Section 13
{l)(a). The appellant challenges this setting aside part, which according to him
is unsustainable, as earlier the defence of the respondent was struck off under B
Section 13 (5) of the Act on this very ground of default. The submission is,
the appellate court misconstrued the provisions of Section 7(4) of the said
Act. Finally, the High Court in second appeal set aside the concurrent findings
recorded by both the courts below and directed the appellant to restore
possession of the suit premises to the respondent. The grounds on which the
High Court interfered is that specific details had not been incorporated in the C
pleading and the finding is against and contrary to the evidence on record.
The finding of the appellate court, of no default by the respondent is not
disturbed.

Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged this impugned order
firstly on the ground that neither any substantial question of law has been D
framed nor it arises in the present case, hence, interference in the second
appeal under Section 100 CPC was without jurisdiction and secondly the High
Collrt should have set aside that part of the order of the appellate court which
holds no default as admittedly the respondent committed default in not
paying rent as provisionally fixed under Section 7. This default under Section E
7 (4) is by itself sufficient for the eviction of the respondent.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits with
vehemence that admittedly the present suit for eviction is based on arrears
of rent at the rate of Rs. 45 per month as per prayer in the plaint, and in spite
of amendment by introducing para 5 (A), as aforesaid, no corresponding F
amendment is made to the prayer. Hence eviction for default could only be
if there be default in not making payment at the rate of Rs.45 per month and
not on account of fixation of provisional standard rent at the rate of Rs. I 00
per month. He also submits once order dated 13th April, 1978 was passed
under Section 13(3) which fixes the amount payable by the tenant for the G
default, no other amount including the amount as enhanced by fixation of
provisional rent under Section 7 could be constituted to be an amount, for
which respondent could be evicted unless this order dated 13th April, 1978
IP is modified. So far setting aside the concurrent findings on sub-letting and
causing nuisance it is submitted that the High Court has given good reasons
for the same. H
222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A The question of interference by the High Court in second appeal, its
principle stands settled by catena of decisions of this Court. The jurisdiction
of courts in first appeals, second appeals or revisions are all, to the extent
conferred by the Legislature. No litigant possesses any natural or inherent
-
right to appeal against any order, unless a statute confers and it is to the
B extent it is conferred. Thus area to challenge is also hedged by the Legislature
hence challenge to the impugned order has to be confined within such
limitation. How Legislature limits such right could be visualised from Section
96 and Section 100 CPC as it stood prior to the amendment by the Amendment
Act 1976 (104 of 1976) and as it stands after this amendment.

C Section 96 deals with appeal from Original Jurisdiction. Its language
confers very wide right both on the appellant to challenge and jurisdiction
of the appellate court to adjudicate, when it uses the words, "An appeal shall
lie from every decree passed by any court exercising Original Jurisdiction".
Even this wide expanse is shrunk through sub-sections 3 and 4. In other
words, no appeal shall lie by virtue of sub-section 3, where it is a consent
D decree and sub-section 4 forbids appeal from an order in a suit cognizable by
courts of small causes, in which the value of the subject matter does not
exceed an amount referred to therein and in other cases only on question of
law.

E Prior to the amendment of Section l 00 CPC a second appeal could have
been filed before the High Court on the grounds as set out in clauses (a) to
(c) of Section 100(1), namely:

"(a) the decision being contrary to law or to some usage having the
force of law;
F (b) the decision having failed to determine some material issue of
law or usage having the force of law;
(c) a substantial error or defect in the procedure provided by this
code or by any other law for the time being in force, which may
possibly have produced error or defect in the decision of the
G case upon _the merits."
So the purpose for amending Section l 00 by the aforesaid Amending
Act was to further limit the jurisdiction of the High Court. Prior to the
amendment the interference could have been where an order is contrary to
law or some usage having the force of law. But now it could only be if any
H substantial question of law arises. The words 'substantial question of law',

:
HARi SINGH v. KANHAIYA LAL [MISRA, J.) 223
brought in has significance not superfluous. So now interference cannot be A
only because order is contrary to law, but when the disputed issues raises
substantial question oflaw. Creation of powers or limiting such powers in the
appellate authorities is always a decision based on public policy expressed
in the maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium. This policy brings to
finality some issues or a litigation at some point of time. If no appeal is
provided, the original order becomes final. Thus it is open for the Legislature B
to bring finality to the adjudication on question of facts upto the stage of first
appeal and limit the second appeal to question of laws or to the substantial
question of law to such other limitation which the Legislature deems fit and
proper. Section 100 CPC after the amendment is reproduced below:

"100. Second Appeal.- (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the
c
• body of this Code by any other law for the time being in force, an
appeal 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 ..
D
(2) An appeal may lie under this Section from an appellate decree
passed ex parte.

(3) In an appeal under this section the memorandum of appeal shall
precisely state the substantial question of law involving in the appeal.

(4) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of
E
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: F
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."
G
Sub-section (3) places an obligation on the appellant to precisely state
the substantial question of law involving in the appeal. Sub-section 4 confers
on the High Court an obligation to formulate the substantial question of law,
if it is satisfied that it is involved. Then sub-section 5 confers right on the
respondent to urge that no substantial question of law arises. The proviso
supplements the discretion to the court to formulate if some other substantial H
224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
I
A question of law arises if not formulated. The aforesaid scheme ·of this Section
clearly reveals the intents of Legislature to limit the exercise of power of the
High Court under Section 100. Thus existence of substantial question of law
is sine qua non for the exercise of power by the High Court under this
Section.

B This Court records in Panc~ugopal Barua v. Umesh Chandra Goswami,
[1997] 4 sec 713 at para 7 :

"Para 7 - A bare look at Section 100 CPC shows that the jurisdiction
of the High Court to entertain a second appeal after the 1976 amendment
c is confined only to such appeals as involve a substantial question of
law, specifically set out in the memorandum of appeal and formulated
· by the High Court. Of course, the proviso to the section shows that
nothing 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 the court is satisfied
D that the case involves such a question. The proviso presupposes that
the court shall indicate in its order the substantial question of law ·
which it proposes to decide even if such substantial question of law
was not earlier formulated by it. The existence of a 'substantial question
of law' is thus, the sine qua non for the exercise of the jurisdiction
E under the amended provisions of Section 100 CPC."

In Kshitish Chandra Purkait v. Santosh Kumar Purkait and Ors.,
[1997] 5 SCC 438, this Court followed and approved the aforesaid decision in
the case of Panchugopal (supra) and further held:

F "Para 10 - We would only add that (a) it is the duty cast upon the
High Court to formulate the substantial question of law involved in
the case even at the initial stage; and (b) that in (exceptional) cases,
at a later point of time, when the Court exercises its jurisdiction under
the proviso to sub-section (5) of Se"ction 100 CPC in formulating the
substantial question of law, the opposite party should be put on
G
notice thereon and should be given a fair or proper opportunity to
meet the point. Proceeding to hear the appeal without formulating the
substantial question of law involved in the appeal is illegal and is an
abnegation or abdication of the duty cast on the Court; and even after
the formulation of the substantial question of law, if a fair or proper
H opportunity is not afforded to the opposite side, it will amount to
HARi SINGH v. KANHAIYA LAL [MISRA, J.] 225
denial of natural justice. The above parameters within which the High A
Court has to exercise its jurisdiction under Section l 00 CPC should
always be borne in mind. We are sorry to state that the above aspects
are seldom borne in mind in many cases and second appeals are
entertained and/or disposed of, without conforming to the above
discipline."
B
This Court in this case expressed its concern that these aspects are
seldom borne in mind while deciding and entertaining the second appeal as
they are being disposed of without conforming to this discipline. The
concerned expressed by this Court in the aforesaid decision, which we also
unhesitatingly reiterate. Though amendment was in the year 1976 but still C
large number of second appeal are being disposed of without conforming to
this requirement.

In Ram Prasad Rajak v. Nand Kumar & Bros and Anr., [1998] 6 SCC
748, this Court held :

"Para 7 .......... Unless there was a substantial question oflaw, the High
D
Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the second appeal and consider
the merits. It has been held by this Court in Panchugopal Barua v.
Umesh Chandra Goswami and Kshitish Chandra Purkait v. Santosh
Kumar Purkait that existence of a substantial question of law is sine
qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. In E
both the aforesaid cases, one of us (Dr. Anand, J) was a party to the
Bench and in the former, he spoke for the Bench."

In Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Giujar and Ors., [1999]
3 sec 722, this court held :
F
"After the amendment a second appeal can be filed only if a substantial
question of law is involved in the case. The memorandum of appeal
must precisely state the substantial question of law involved and the
High Court is obliged to satisfy itself regarding the existence of such
a question. If satisfied, the High Court has to formulate the substantial G
question of law involved in the case. The appeal is required to be
heard on the question so formulated. However, the respondent at the
time of the hearing of the appeal has a right to argue that the case
in the court did not involve any substantial question of law. The
proviso to the section acknowledges the powers of the High Court to
hear the appeal on a substantial point of law, though not formulated H
226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A by it with the object of ensuring that no injustice is done to the
litigant where such a question was not formulated at the time of
admission either by mistake or by inadvertence."

Thus within the said periphery the question arises, whether the High
Court in the present case has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in setting aside
B the findings recorded by both the courts below? So far the question of sub-
letting the finding was based on the deposition of the witnesses to whom the
disputed premises was sub-let. Their testimony was rejected by the High
Court mainly on the basis that there is no detail pleading pertaining to the
period of sub-tenancy and even the witnesses have not produced any receipt
C of payment of rent. It is not in dispute that there is pleading that the disputed
premises was sub-let. The detail, if any, can be supplemented through evidence.
Mere lack of details in the pleading cannot be reason to set aside concurrent
finding of facts. Similarly, the High Court interfered with the concurrent
finding of facts that nuisance was created by the respondent by obstructing
the passage leading to the appellant house by keeping onion bags leaving
D out of space of 11 feet to 3 feet only. The fact of this obstruction is also
supported by the Commissioner report submitted in the present proceedings.
The finding recorded on sub-letting and nuisance by both the Courts below
being based on evidence on record its setting aside by reappraisal of evidence,
and in any case without framing any substantial question of law by the High
E Court cannot be sustained and further we also do not find any substantial
question of law arising therein. Learned counsel for the respondent tried to
submit with force by attempting to take us to the evidence of the witnesses
to show their unworthiness for reliance. It is neither a case of no evidence
nor perverse finding. All these submissions are within the realm of appreciation
of evidence which should not have been interfered by the High Court for less
F for us to examine.

Returning to the question of default committed by the respondent, the
submission is, as per prayer in the suit the arrear claimed is only at the rate
of Rs. 45 per month, hence without its amendment, subsequent enhancement
G to Rs. I 00 per month under Section 7 cannot be construed to be a default for
eviction. Further unless the order under Section 13(3) is modified as aforesaid
the non-deposit of this payment, if at all, at this rate cannot be construed to
be default. Thus this enhance amount, if any, cannot be construed as default
for eviction. He further submits as per Hindi Calendar months, which is
referred in the plaint, even after the enhancement under Section 7, if computed
H under it there is no default. It has also been urged by learned counsel for the
HARi SINGH v. KANHAIY A LAL [MISRA, J.] 227
respondent that the order under Section 7 has not been brought on the record A

- in this proceeding, hence, could not be relied. On the other hand learned
counsel for the appellant submits Section 7 stands by itself and any default
after fixation of the provisional rent tinder it and failure to pay this rent for
any month by 15th day of the next following month of such determination
renders a tenant liable for eviction. There is ·no need to modify· any order B
under Section 13 (3) for this and after amendment of plaint even without
amending prayer, by virtue of Section 7 (4) the respondent is liable for
eviction. Further, there is no plea by the· respondent that rent is payable as
per Hindi Calendar month. Description in the plaint of the arrears by referring
names of Hindi month does not make tenancy by Hindi Calendar.

Though the submission on this question of default was stretched, both
c
by learned counsels for the appellant and the respondent at great length but
we do not propose to go into this question, when we have upheld the
concurrent findings of both the Courts below of sub-letting and creating
nuisance, which by itself is sufficient for a decree for eviction. The submission,
since it raises question of interpretation of various sub-sections of Section D
13 and Section 7, it is not necessary to go into it for the said reason in the
present proceedings. This apart, as we have held that the High Court committed
error in the exercise of its jurisdiction in setting aside the concurrent findings
of fact on sub-letting and nuisance without formulating and there being any
substantial question of law, the same also equally applies so far this third E
point, namely, the default of the tenant. Once the appellate court recorded the
finding that there is no default that became final and if the High Court did
not interfere with this finding, we do not find, it committed any such error
which require our int~rference. We do not find any substantial question
arising out of the decision on this point.
F
For the aforesaid reasons and the findings recorded by us, we find it
to be a fit case to allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and order of
the High Court dated 15th December, 1995 and uphold the decree passed in
favour of the appellant by the two courts below. On the facts and circumstances
of the case, costs on the parties.
G
v.s.s. Appeal allowed.