[2026:RJ-JP:7357] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 296/2024 1. Kailashchand S/o Late Shri Gyarsilal Nobatka, aged about 73 Years, R/o Mohalla Bhachadi, Kasba Kotputli, District Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Ashok Kumar S/o Late Shri Gyarsilal Nobatka, R/o Mohalla Bhachadi, Kasba Kotputli, District Jaipur, Rajasthan 3. Pista D/o Late Shri Gyarsilal Nobatka, R/o Mohalla Bhachadi, Kasba Kotputli, District Jaipur, Rajasthan 4. 4/1. 4/2. 4/3. 4/4. 4/5. Kailashi Devi W/o Madanla D/o Late Sh. Gyarsilal Nobatka, R/o Mohalla Bhachadi, Kasba Kotputli, District Jaipur, Rajasthan (Deceased) Sanjay Mittal S/o Kailashi Devi W/o Madan Lal D/o Late Shri Gyarsilal, Vikram S/o Kailashi Devi W/o Madan Lal D/o Late Shri Gyarsilal, Ajay Kumar S/o Kailashi Devi W/o Madan Lal D/o Late Shri Gyarsilal, Vijay Kumar S/o Kailashi Devi W/o Madan Lal D/o Late Shri Gyarsilal, Babita D/o Late Kailashi Devi W/o Madan Lal D/o Late Shri Gyarsilal, All R/o Mohalla Bhachadi, Kasba Kotputli, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. 5. Satyanaraian S/o Hazarilal Sharma, R/o Mohalla Bhachadi, Kasba Kotputli, District Jaipur, Rajasthan (Deceased) 5/1. Shambhu S/o Late Satyanaraian Sharma, 5/2. Bajrang S/o Late Satyanaraian Sharma, 5/3. Santosh D/o Late Satyanaraian Sharma, 5/4. Bina D/o Late Satyanaraian Sharma, All R/o Mohalla Bhachadi, Kasba Kotputli, District Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Appellants Versus 1. Smt. Saroj Devi W/o Ramkishan Sharma, R/o Mohalla Bhachadi, Kasba Kotputli, District Jaipur, Rajasthan(Since Deceased) through her legal representatives. 1/1. Amit Sharma, S/o Late Smt. Saroj Devi. 1/2. Ashish Sharma, S/o Late Smt. Saroj Devi. All presently resident of opposite Jai Vilas Marriage Garden, Kunj Vihar Colony, Kotputli, Rajasthan. 1/3. Meenu Sharma D/o Saroj Devi W/o Ashish Joshi, R/o Shahpura Bagh, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. ----Respondents [2026:RJ-JP:7357] (2 of 9) [CSA-296/2024] For Appellant(s) : Mr. Harish Agrawal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anoop Pareek Mr. Kshitiz Sharma Mr. Pranav Pareek HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 16/02/2026 1. The present second appeal has been filed by the appellants- defendants-tenant against the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2024 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.4, Kotputli in First Civil Appeal No.28/2020(27/2012) CIS No.27/2012 titled 'Kailashchand & Ors. Vs. Smt. Saroj Devi', whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2012 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Kotputli in Civil Original Suit No.220/89 titled 'Smt. Saroj Devi Vs. Kailashchand & Ors.' was confirmed. 2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal are that on 28.05.1987, the original plaintiff, namely, legal representatives of Late Lala Surajbhan Gupta filed a suit for rent and eviction against the legal representatives of Late Gyarsi Lal (original tenant). 3. In the eviction suit it was stated that the suit property was let out to Late Gyarsi Lal on 01.01.1983 for a period of 11 months on a rent of Rs.125/- per month. It was also stated therein that Late Gyarsi Lal (tenant) had paid rent up to 01.01.1985 and thereafter, committed default in payment of rent as the legal representatives of Late Gyarsi Lal (tenant) had failed to pay or tender rent for a period of more than six months. It was further [2026:RJ-JP:7357] (3 of 9) [CSA-296/2024] stated that the suit premises had deteriorated and needed repairs, thus, eviction of the tenant was necessary. 4. During the pendency of the said suit, the suit property was alienated by the legal representatives of Late Lala Surajbhan Gupta to Smt. Saroj Devi vide registered sale deed dated 26.06.1998. Therefore, Smt. Saroj Devi was impleaded as a party under the provisions of Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC, and thereafter the suit was pursued by Smt. Saroj Devi against the legal representatives of Late Gyarsi Lal. 5. Subsequently, the defendants/appellants filed their written statement on 02.06.1990, wherein they refuted the averments made in the plaint and stated that the suit property was owned by Late Gyarsi Lal (tenant) and upon his death the suit property was devolved on to the present defendants/appellants. 6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed as many as seven issues, which are as follows:- 1- vk;k izfroknhx.k ds firk Lo0 X;kjlhyky us oknhx.k ls fooknxzLr ifjlj 125 : ekgokj ds fglkc ls ekSf[kd 'krksZa ij fdjk;s ij fy;k Fkk \ 2- vk;k Lo0 X;kjlhyky ,oa izfroknh us fooknxzLr ifjlj dk fdjk;k fnukad 1-1-85 rd dk gh vnk fd;k gS] mlds ckn dksbZ fdjk;k vnk ugha fd;k gSA oknhx.k cdk;k fdjk;k olwy djus ds vf/kdkjh gS rFkk fdjk;k vnk ugha djds izfroknhx.k us fMQkYV fd;k gS\ 3- vk;k fooknxzLr ifjlj dh pkj nhokjh VwV QwV x;h gS] dks fxjus dh fLFkfr esa gS rFkk ejEer ryc gS\ 4- vk;k oknh la[;k 1 'ks"k oknhx.k dk eq[r;kjvke gS\ 5- vk;k Lo0 X;kjlhyky ifjlj dk fdjk;snkj ugha Fkk] cfYd ekfyd Fkk rFkk izfroknhx.k cgSfl;r ekfyd fooknxzLr ifjlj esa dkfct gS \ 6- vk;k nkok esUVsuscy ugha gS\ [2026:RJ-JP:7357] (4 of 9) [CSA-296/2024] 6,- vk;k fookfnr uksgjk o edku izfroknh lR;ukjk;.k ds ikl lu 1963 ls 15 :- ekgokj fdjk;s ij X;kjlhyky ukscr dk firk izfr- la- 1 yxk;r 6 dh vksj ls fdjk;s ij vlkZ ls pyk vk jgk gS rFkk vc Hkh X;kjlhyky dh vkSykn dh vksj ls fdjk;s ij fdjk;snkj gS \ 7- vuqrks"k \ 7. Thereafter, in order to substantiate the pleas and averments made in the plaint, the plaintiffs/respondents examined PW-1- Ghansiram, PW-2-Kishore Lal, PW-3-Ramkishan, PW-3-Brijmohan Gupta, PW-4-Dr. Hussain Rajjak Khan, PW-5-Saroj Sharma and produced documents Ex.1-Rent agreement, Ex.2- Patta, Ex.3-Will, Ex.4-property declaration, Ex.5-newspaper cutting, Ex.6-post office slip, Ex.7-Return, Ex.8-Declaration, Ex.9 to Ex.16-Letter, Ex.13B-Hindi translation of Will, Ex.18-Letter, Ex.19-Sale Deed, Ex.20-21-order of land record in favour of Jamnasahay by Nagarpalika Kotputli and Ex.22-Site Plan. 8. In rebuttal, the defendants/appellants examined DW-1 Kailash s/o Gyarsi Lal, DW-2 Kailash Chand Soni, DW-3 Smt. Bharpai, DW-3 Raghuwardayal, DW-4 Lokesh Kumar, DW-5 Satya Naraian, DW-6 Sanjay Mittal and also produced documents Ex.A1- Licence, Ex.A2-Site Plan, Ex.A3-Certificate, Ex.A4-Power of Attorney, Ex.A5-Site Plan. 9. After hearing arguments of both the parties, the learned Trial Court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff/landlord and vide judgment and decree dated 12.10.2012 decreed the suit for eviction against the defendants/appellants on the ground of default in payment of rent and directed the defendants/appellants to handover peaceful possession of the disputed suit property to the plaintiffs/respondents within a period of two months, and the defendants/appellants were further directed to pay the [2026:RJ-JP:7357] (5 of 9) [CSA-296/2024] outstanding rent @ Rs.125 per month from 01.01.1985 along with 6% interest per annum. 10. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 12.10.2012, the defendants/appellants preferred a regular appeal No.28/2020(27/2012) and the learned Appellate Court after considering all the pleadings and evidence on record vide its judgment and decree dated 27.03.2024 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2012 passed by the learned Trial Court. 11. Being aggrieved of which, the defendants/appellants have filed the present second appeal. 12. Learned counsel for the defendants/appellants while impugning the aforesaid judgments and decrees dated 12.10.2012 and 27.03.2024, submits that the learned Court below seriously erred in not appreciating the fact that the defendants/appellants are not tenants and the general power of attorney given in favour of plaintiff No.1 was not valid. He further submits that there is variance between the pleadings and proof in the evidence led by the plaintiffs/respondents, therefore, the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below are unsustainable. He also submits that the learned Trial Court has erred in decreeing the suit while ignoring material contradictions in the testimony of PW-1-Ghansiram and PW-2-Kishore Lal; he accordingly prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants/appellants and contended that both the [2026:RJ-JP:7357] (6 of 9) [CSA-296/2024] learned Courts below have duly considered the pleadings of the parties and evidence available on record in detail and there is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the learned courts against the defendants/appellants which does not call for any interference by this Court. Apart from the above, the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord submits that possession of the suit property has been handed over to him in execution, therefore nothing survives in this civil second appeal. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the present second appeal. 14. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 15. From the record of the case, it is evident that the suit was filed on 28.05.1987 and all the issues relating to tenancy, rate of rent and default in payment of rent were concurrently decided against the defendants/appellants. Further, both the learned courts below have categorically held that Late Lala Surajbhan Gupta (predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff) was the owner of the suit property and had let out the same to Late Gyarsi Lal (predecessor-in-title of the present appellants). The Trial Court has also duly considered the evidence led by the plaintiff/respondent to substantiate the factum of ownership i.e. Ex.1- Ex.22. 16. Further, both the learned courts below while deciding issue No.5 have categorically held that the defendants/appellants failed to prove the fact that they were owners of the suit property, therefore, both the learned courts below have decided the issue No.5 against the defendants/appellants. [2026:RJ-JP:7357] (7 of 9) [CSA-296/2024] 17. Since the issue relating to ownership has been decided against the defendants/appellants, therefore, all the questions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants qua the General Power of Attorney and the Sale Deed executed in pursuance of the General Power of Attorney become immaterial, because the defendants/appellants are mere tenants in the suit property and the present suit is for eviction and recovery of rent, not a suit for declaration of title. 18. Furthermore, the documents, so produced by the plaintiffs/respondents i.e. Ex.10 and Ex.12, corroborate the title of the original plaintiff, and Ex.9, which is a reply given by Late Gyarsi Lal (Predecessor-in-title of the Appellants) seeking time to vacate the suit property, establishes the fact that the defendants/appellants are merely tenants in the suit property, as in the said letter, neither any assertion of ownership was made nor was it alleged during the course of the trial that the document was forged or fabricated. The defendants/appellants, therefore, failed to establish their plea of ownership, whereas the plaintiffs/respondents successfully proved the existence of tenancy and its valid termination by notice. 19. Even otherwise, both the learned Courts below have granted a decree of eviction on the ground of default in paying rent while observing that in the present suit, vide order dated 21.08.1990 the Trial Court has determined provisional rent under Section 13(3) of the Rent Control Act, 1950, and the appellant herein has even failed to deposit the rent as determined by the learned Courts below. Therefore in terms of Section 13(5) and 13(6) of the Rent Control Act, 1950, the appellant is not entitled for any [2026:RJ-JP:7357] (8 of 9) [CSA-296/2024] protection, and the aforesaid concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below under Issue No.2 are perfectly valid and in accordance with law. 20. In view of the above, it is evident that there is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the defendants/appellants, and therefore the same cannot be accepted. 21. In Nazir Mohamed vs J.Kamala And Ors.1, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the condition precedent for entertaining and deciding a second appeal is the existence of a substantial question of law. As such, a second appeal cannot be decided on equitable grounds, rather the conditions prescribed in section 100 of CPC must be strictly complied with to admit and maintain a second appeal. 22. In Navaneethammal v. Arjuna Chetty2, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that High Courts should not re-appreciate the evidence in the matter to reach another possible view in order to set aside the findings of fact arrived at by the first appellate court. 23. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that the findings arrived at by the learned Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court are based on a proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. Hence, the concurrent findings arrived at by the learned Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court are found immaculate and infallible in the eye of law. 24. Since both the learned courts below have concurrently decided all the issues in favour of plaintiff-landlord and against the 1 AIR 2020 SC (4321) 2 (1996) 6 SCC 166 [2026:RJ-JP:7357] (9 of 9) [CSA-296/2024] present appellant-tenant, and the questions so raised by the appellant do not fall within the purview of substantial questions of law. All the questions so raised fall in the realm of questions of fact, which do not call for any interference. 25. Apart from all the above, as informed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent that the possession of the suit property has been handed over to the plaintiff/respondent by way of execution, nothing survives in the present civil second appeal. 26. Accordingly, the present second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 27. All other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /4