SHEEL CHANDversusPRAKASH CHAND

                              SHEEL CHAND                                          A
                                   v.
                             PRAKASH CHAND

                            SEPTEMBER 1, 1998

                [DR. A.S. ANAND AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.)                              B

        Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 :

         S.100--Second appeal-Scope of-Non-residential premises-
  Landlord seeking eviction of tenant mz ground of bona fide need-ConcwTent
  finding of fact by t1ial cowt and appellate cowt that need of landlord was       c
, not bona fide-High Cowt in second appeal, reversing the findin[jHeld,
  existence of a 'substantial question of law' is sine qua non for exercise of
  jwisdiction by High Cowt, which wzjustifiabj,)1 inte1fered with pure questions
  of fact-Rent and Eviction.
                                                                                   D
       Panclmgopal Banta v. Umesh Chandra Goswami, [1997] 4 SCC 713;
 K>hitish Chandra Purakait v. Santosh Kumar Purkait and Others, [1997] 5
 sec 438, relied on.
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 14738
 of 1996.                                                                          E
      From the Judgment and Order dated 13.9.96 of the Madhya Pradesh
 High Court in S.A. No. 156 of 1994.

       M.L. Varma, Vivek Gambhir and D.P. Chaturvedi for the Appellant.
                                                                                   F
       S.S, Khanduja and B.K. Satija for the Respondent.

       The following Order of the Court was delivered :

      This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the
 High Court dated 13th September, 1996.
                                                                                   G
       Appellant is the tenant. Respondent is the landlord. The premises
 had been let out by the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondent·
 landlord in 1968. The suit for eviction was filed against the tenant by the
 respondent-landlord on various grounds including the ground that he
 required the suit premises for his bona fide personal need for starting his       H
                                       297
    298                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A business. It was the case of the respondent - landlord that though he was
  an advocate, he wanted the suit shop for starting his business of a 'General
  Store' as he did not intend to practice law. The suit was resisted. The trial
  court after framing issues and recording evidence came to the conclusion
  that the need of the landlord was not genuine or bonafide. The suit was
B dismissed. Landlord's appeal before the appellate authority failed and the
  finding recorded by the trial court of the effect that the need of the
  landlord was not bo11a fide or genuine was confirmed. The landlord there-
  upon filed a second appeal in the High Court. By the impugned order the
  concurrent findings of fact were set aside by the learned Single Judge of
  the High Court in second appeal.
c
          We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

          The learned Single Judge while admitting the second appeal under
    Section 100 CPC framed the f@llowing question of law:-

D           'Whether the finding relating to bo11afide requirement of the ap-
            pellant of the Courts below is vitiated due to irrelevant considera-
            tion and not under law?'

          In Panchugopal Barna v. Umesh Chandra Goswami, [1997] 4 SCC 713
E to which one of us (Anand, J.) was a party, explaining the scope of Section
    100 CPC, it was observed :-

                "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 is confined only to such appeals as involve a substan-
F           tial 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 that the case involves such a question.
G           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
            11011 for the exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended
H           provisions of Section 100 CPC."
                 SHEEL CHAND v. PRAKASH CHAND                         299

      The above judgment was approved by a three Judge Bench of this A
Court in Kshitish Chandra Purakait v. Santosh Kumar Purkait and Others,
[1997] 5 sec 438 wherein it was held :-                               .

            "10 We would only add that (a) it is the duty cast upon the
        High Court to formulate the substantial question of law involved
                                                                              B
        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 juris-
        diction under the proviso to sub-Section(5) of Section 100 CPC in
        formulating the substantial question of law,· the opposite party
        should be put on notice thereon and should be given a fair or
        proper opportunity to meet the point. Proceeding to hear the        c
        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 court; and even after the formulation of the substantial
        question of law, if a fair or proper opportunity is not afforded to
        the opposite side, it will amount to denial of natural justice. The D
        above parameters within which the High Court has to exercise its
        jurisdiction under Section 100 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."
                                                                            E
       The question of law formulated by the learned Single judge, noticed
above, strictly speaking is not even a question of law, let alone a substantial
question of law. The existenr;e of a 'substantial question of law', is the sine
qua 11011 for the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under the
amended provisions of Section 100 CPC. It appears that the learned Single p
Judge over looked the change brought about to Section 100 CPC by the
Amendment made in 1976. The High Court unjustifiably interfered with
pure questions of fact while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC.
It was not proper for the learned Single Judge to .have reversed the
concurrent findings of fact while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100
CPC. That apart, we find that the learned Single Judge did not even notice, G
let alone answer the question of law which had been formulated by it at
the time of admission of the second appeal. There is no reference to the
question of law in the impugned order and it appears that the High Court
thought that it was dealing with a first appeal and not a second appeal
under Section 100 CPC. The findings of fact recorded by the two courts H
    300                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A below were based on proper appreciation of evidence and the material on
    the record. There was no perversity, illegality or irregularity in those
    findings. None has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for
    the respondent either. The findings, therefore, did not require to be upset
    in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC. The judgment of the learned
B   Single Judge, under the circumstances, cannot be sustained. This appeal
    consequently succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order of the High
    Court dated 13th September 1996 is set aside. As a result, the eviction suit
    filed by the landlord shall stand dismissed. No costs.

    R.P.                                                       Appeal allowed.