Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5823 OF 2008

SATISH CHAND (D) BY LRS. & ANR.      ...  APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

KAILASH CHAND & ORS.                            ... RESPONDENT (S)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.:

  Appellant-landlords  are  aggrieved  by  the  impugned

judgment passed in Second Appeal No. 602 of 2002 by the High

Court  of  Madhya  Pradesh  at  Indore  whereby  the  High  Court

reversed the order of eviction passed by the first appellate court.

The first  appellate  court  had reversed the  finding  of  the  Civil

Judge, Class II, Sanwad (for short “the trial court”) on the issue of

landlord-tenant  relationship  and  thus  aggrieved,  the  present

appeal.  

2. The appeal is not contested by the respondent-tenants.

3. The  trial  court  had  entered  a  finding  that  Vallabhdas,

whose heirs are the respondents herein was entitled to sell the

property to the appellant-landlords. There was also a finding

1

Page 2

that  there  was  no  landlord-tenant  relationship.  The  first

appellate court, having regard to an earlier finding, which was

an admitted position in  a previous litigation,  held that  there

was landlord-tenant relationship. The court granted eviction on

the ground of  arrears of  rent  but  declined on the ground of

bona fide need. The first appellate court also upheld the right

of  Vallabhdas  to  alienate  the  property  to  the

appellant-landlords and thereafter treating the seller as tenant.

The High Court however, took a different stand and held that it

was too early for the courts below to enter a finding as to the

right of Vallabhdas to sell his property.  

4. Having  heard  the  learned  senior  counsel  for  the

appellants, we are of the view that the High Court in Second

Appeal  was not  justified in  reversing the concurrent  findings

entered by the first appellate court and trial court in the matter

of  right  to  sell  and  in  reversing  the  admitted  position  of

landlord-tenant  relationship  as  found  by  the  first  appellate

court and denying eviction.

5. First appellate court is the last court on facts. We find no

perversity in the findings of the first appellate court. The said

court has found on admission that there was landlord-tenant

2

Page 3

relationship. After entering such a finding only, the eviction was

ordered on the ground of arrears of rent.  There is no dispute on

these  facts.  On  the  right  to  sell  the  property  by  the  first

respondent’s father, the findings are concurrent. In that view of

the  matter,  we  allow  the  appeal,  set  aside  the  impugned

judgment  of  the  High  Court  and  restore  that  of  the  first

appellate court.   The respondents are given a period of  two

months to surrender vacant possession to the appellants. No

costs.  

.......................J.         (KURIAN JOSEPH)

.……………………J.                     (R. BANUMATHI)

New Delhi; April 11, 2017.   

3