1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal  No(s).  4451 OF 2009

SHRIKANT                                           Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

NARAYAN SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS.              Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

BANUMATHI, J.:

(1) This appeal arises out of judgment and order of the Madhya

Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, in Second Appeal NO.303 of

1998 dated 29th September, 2005 and also review petition, M.C.C.

NO.1258 of 2005 dated 27th January, 2006, in and by which the

High  Court  has  held  that  the  quit  notice  issued  by  the

appellant-landlord was defective and hence the appellant is not

entitled to seek for eviction.

(2) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also

perused  the  impugned  judgment  and  the  evidence  and  the

materials on record.

2

(3) The appellant herein has filed a suit for eviction and

recovery  of  rent  of  Rs.2700/-  per  month.   The  Trial  Court

decreed the suit and ordered eviction of the respondent(s). The

Trial Court recorded the finding that there is landlord-tenant

relationship and also held that the quit notice was a valid

notice.  The Trial court further directed the respondent to pay

mesne profits/rent for a period of three years prior to filing

of the suit.

(4) Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Trial Court,

the respondent filed appeal before the First Appellate Court.

The  First  Appellate  Court  allowed  the  appeal  filed  by  the

respondent(s) holding that the appellant has not proved the

landlord-tenant relationship and that the first respondent is

the tenant under the appellant.  Be it noted that the validity

of the termination notice was, however, upheld by the First

Appellate Court.

(5) Being aggrieved by the judgment of the First Appellate

Court, the appellant preferred second appeal before the High

Court.   In  the  second  appeal  the  High  Court  has

formulated/framed the following substantial questions of law

which read as under :

“1. Whether the plaintiff appellant is entitled to

a decree for possession of the suit premises on the

basis of admission of title of the plaintiff by the

3

defendant in the light of the principle laid down

by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment

reported in 1966 SC 735?

2.  Whether  the  first  appellate  court  erred  in

rejecting the document Exhibit P-1 evidencing the

tenancy of respondent No.1 Narayan Singh without

any legal basis?”

(6) While deciding the second appeal, it appears that the High

Court has not answered the substantial questions of law framed

by the High Court; but the High Court has examined the question

as to the validity or otherwise of the quit notice (Exhibit P-

2)  dated  5th August,  1976  sent  by  the  appellant  to  the

respondent(s) and the High Court observed that the quit notice

was defective.  The validity of the quit notice (Exhibit P-2)

was not an issue before the High Court nor any question of law

was framed on the same.  In our considered view, the High Court

ought to have examined the substantial questions of law framed

by it and answered the same in accordance with law.  In such

view of the matter the impugned order is not sustainable and

the matter has to be remitted back to the High Court.

(7) The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned orders

passed in Second Appeal No.303 of 1988 and M.C.C. NO.1258 of

2005 are set aside.  The matter is remitted back to the High

Court  for  considering  the  same  afresh  after  affording

sufficient opportunity to both the parties.  We make it clear

4

that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the

matter. No costs.

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

..........................J.         (INDIRA BANERJEE)

NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 23, 2018.