Supreme Court Upholds Concurrent Findings in Eviction Case: Rabindranath Panigrahi vs. Surendra Sahu (2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: March 6, 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 333

Judges: Sanjay Karol J., Prashant Kumar Mishra J.

In a dispute between a landlord and a tenant over shop rooms, the Supreme Court of India examined whether the High Court of Orissa was correct in overturning the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The core issue revolved around the relationship between the parties and whether the tenant could claim adverse possession. The bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute between Rabindranath Panigrahi (the landlord/appellant) and Surendra Sahu (the tenant/respondent) concerning two shop rooms in Berhampur, Orissa. The property, known as ‘Madhu Mandir,’ was originally owned by Smt. Ashalata Devi.

The plaintiff, Rabindranath Panigrahi, claimed to be the adopted son of Smt. Ashalata Devi and, as such, inherited the property after her death. He asserted that the shop rooms were leased to the defendant, Surendra Sahu, in 1974 with a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-. According to the plaintiff, the defendant stopped paying rent from July 2001 onwards, leading to a notice of eviction under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, on January 27, 2003, demanding the premises be vacated by March 1, 2003.

The defendant, Surendra Sahu, denied the landlord-tenant relationship and claimed to have acquired the property through an oral gift from Smt. Ashalata Devi and by adverse possession.

Timeline

Date	Event
1974	Alleged lease of the suit premises to the defendant.
July 2001	Defendant allegedly stopped paying rent.
January 27, 2003	Plaintiff issued a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to the defendant, terminating the tenancy.
February 24, 2003	Defendant replied, refusing to vacate and claiming adverse possession and oral gift.
2003	Plaintiff filed C.S.No.276 of 2003 for eviction and recovery of arrears before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Berhampur.
October 12, 2007	Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
January 29, 2011	First Appellate Court affirmed the Trial Court’s findings and dismissed the appeal.
June 20, 2022	High Court of Orissa allowed the Second Appeal, reversing the concurrent findings.
March 6, 2025	Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and directed the tenant to handover possession.

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff on October 12, 2007, holding that the plaintiff was the legally adopted son of Smt. Ashalata Devi and had acquired ownership of the property. The court also found that the defendant had failed to establish any rightful claim over the suit premises, as no right could be acquired by way of an oral gift, and the defendant’s possession was permissive, not adverse. The Trial Court concluded that a landlord-tenant relationship existed between the plaintiff and defendant since 1974.

The First Appellate Court affirmed the Trial Court’s findings on January 29, 2011, dismissing the defendant’s appeal. The appellate court agreed that the defendant’s possession was permissive and did not constitute adverse possession, as there was no evidence of hostile animus towards the owner. The court noted that the defendant had not challenged the plaintiff’s status as the adopted son of Ashalata Devi.

Legal Framework

✓ Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882: This section deals with the notice required to terminate a lease. The plaintiff issued a notice under this section to terminate the defendant’s tenancy.

✓ Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908: This section pertains to Second Appeals and the conditions under which a High Court can entertain such appeals. The defendant filed a Second Appeal under this section, which was initially allowed by the High Court but later overturned by the Supreme Court.

✓ As per the plaintiff , the suit premises were leased out to the defendant in 197 4. The monthly rent for the shops was fixed at Rs.1,000/ – per month with further agreement that the defendant would bear the electricity and other charges as per consumption and use . Since the defendant was an old acquaintance and had worked as a family servant, the plaintiff leased the suit premises without executing a formal lease deed.

✓ Consequently, the plaintiff issued a notice dated 27th January 2003 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act , 1882, terminating the defendant’s tenancy w.e.f. 28th February 2003 and directing him to vacate the suit premises by 1st March 2003.

✓ Aggrieved by the dismissal of the First Appeal, the defendant preferred a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, being RSA No.131 of 2011 before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack , which was allowed vide the impugned judgment.

Arguments

Plaintiff’s Arguments:

Adoption and Ownership: The plaintiff claimed to be the legally adopted son of Smt. Ashalata Devi, thereby inheriting the suit premises upon her demise.
Landlord-Tenant Relationship: The plaintiff asserted that the suit premises were leased to the defendant in 1974 for a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-, establishing a landlord-tenant relationship.
Default in Rent Payment: The defendant stopped paying rent from July 2001 onwards, making him a defaulter and liable for eviction.
Notice under Section 106: A notice was issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, terminating the tenancy and directing the defendant to vacate the premises.

Defendant’s Arguments:

Denial of Landlord-Tenant Relationship: The defendant denied the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship with the plaintiff.
Oral Gift: The defendant claimed to have acquired the suit premises from Smt. Ashalata Devi through an oral gift.
Adverse Possession: The defendant asserted that he had perfected his title over the suit premises by way of adverse possession.

Submissions Table:

Main Submission	Plaintiff’s Sub-Argument	Defendant’s Sub-Argument
Ownership of Property	Plaintiff is the adopted son of Smt. Ashalata Devi and inherited the property.	Defendant acquired the property through an oral gift from Smt. Ashalata Devi.
Relationship between Parties	There existed a landlord-tenant relationship since 1974 with a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.	No landlord-tenant relationship existed.
Possession of Property	Defendant was a tenant and defaulted in rent payment from July 2001.	Defendant perfected title over the property by way of adverse possession.

Innovativeness of the argument: The defendant’s argument of acquiring property through an oral gift and adverse possession, despite initially entering the premises with permission, presents an innovative challenge to the established property rights.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered whether the questions framed by the High Court were substantial questions of law as required under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

Whether the High Court was justified in overturning concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in Second Appeal.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Issue	How the Court Dealt with It	Brief Reasons
Whether the High Court was justified in overturning concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in Second Appeal.	The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in overturning the concurrent findings.	The questions framed by the High Court did not meet the criteria to be substantial questions of law. The High Court should not have disturbed the findings of fact unless they were perverse.

Authorities

The court relied on several precedents to determine whether the questions framed by the High Court were substantial questions of law. These included:

Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari [(2001) 3 SCC 179] – Regarding the scope of Section 100 CPC.
Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki [(2007) 1 SCC 546] – Regarding the scope of Section 100 CPC.
State Bank of India v. S.N. Goyal [(2008) 8 SCC 9215] – Regarding the scope of Section 100 CPC.
Suresh Lataruji Ramteke v. Sau. Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1210] – Regarding the scope of Section 100 CPC.
Jaichand v. Sahnulal [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3864] – Regarding the scope of Section 100 CPC.
Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal [(2006) 5 SCC 545] – Defining what constitutes a substantial question of law.
Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala [(2020) 19 SCC 57] – Defining what constitutes a substantial question of law.
P. Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K. Patkar [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1483] – Defining what constitutes a substantial question of law.
Ramachandra Reddy v. Ramulu Ammal [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3301] – Defining what constitutes a substantial question of law.
Murthy v. C. Saradambal [(2022) 3 SCC 209] – Regarding the duties of the First Appellate Court.

The court also considered:

Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Regarding Second Appeals.
Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Regarding notice of termination of lease.

Authority	Court	How Considered
Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari [(2001) 3 SCC 179]	Supreme Court of India	Cited to emphasize that a High Court should not disturb findings of fact under Section 100 CPC.
Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki [(2007) 1 SCC 546]	Supreme Court of India	Cited to emphasize that a High Court should not disturb findings of fact under Section 100 CPC.
State Bank of India v. S.N. Goyal [(2008) 8 SCC 9215]	Supreme Court of India	Cited to emphasize that a High Court should not disturb findings of fact under Section 100 CPC.
Suresh Lataruji Ramteke v. Sau. Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1210]	Supreme Court of India	Cited to emphasize that a High Court should not disturb findings of fact under Section 100 CPC.
Jaichand v. Sahnulal [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3864]	Supreme Court of India	Cited to highlight that High Courts repeatedly err in understanding the scope of power under Section 100 CPC.
Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal [(2006) 5 SCC 545]	Supreme Court of India	Cited for the test to determine whether a question of law raised is substantial.
Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala [(2020) 19 SCC 57]	Supreme Court of India	Cited to define what constitutes a “substantial” question of law.
P. Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K. Patkar [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1483]	Supreme Court of India	Cited to define what constitutes a “substantial” question of law.
Ramachandra Reddy v. Ramulu Ammal [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3301]	Supreme Court of India	Cited to define what constitutes a “substantial” question of law.
Murthy v. C. Saradambal [(2022) 3 SCC 209]	Supreme Court of India	Cited regarding the duties of the First Appellate Court.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

Submission	Party	How the Court Treated It
Plaintiff is the adopted son of Smt. Ashalata Devi and inherited the property.	Plaintiff	Accepted as the defendant did not challenge this claim, and it attained finality.
There existed a landlord-tenant relationship since 1974.	Plaintiff	Upheld as a finding of fact by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, which should not have been disturbed by the High Court.
Defendant defaulted in rent payment from July 2001.	Plaintiff	Consequential to the finding of a landlord-tenant relationship, making the defendant liable for arrears.
Defendant acquired the property through an oral gift from Smt. Ashalata Devi.	Defendant	Rejected as the defendant failed to provide evidence of a valid gift deed.
No landlord-tenant relationship existed.	Defendant	Rejected as both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court established the existence of such a relationship based on evidence.
Defendant perfected title over the property by way of adverse possession.	Defendant	Rejected as the defendant’s possession was permissive and he failed to establish open, continuous, and hostile possession.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari [CITATION]: Cited to reinforce that High Courts should not disturb findings of fact under Section 100 CPC.
Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki [CITATION]: Cited to reinforce that High Courts should not disturb findings of fact under Section 100 CPC.
State Bank of India v. S.N. Goyal [CITATION]: Cited to reinforce that High Courts should not disturb findings of fact under Section 100 CPC.
Suresh Lataruji Ramteke v. Sau. Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar [CITATION]: Cited to reinforce that High Courts should not disturb findings of fact under Section 100 CPC.
Jaichand v. Sahnulal [CITATION]: Cited to highlight that High Courts repeatedly err in understanding the scope of power under Section 100 CPC.
Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal [CITATION]: Cited for the established test to determine whether a question of law raised is substantial.
Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala [CITATION]: Cited to define what constitutes a “substantial” question of law.
P. Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K. Patkar [CITATION]: Cited to define what constitutes a “substantial” question of law.
Ramachandra Reddy v. Ramulu Ammal [CITATION]: Cited to define what constitutes a “substantial” question of law.
Murthy v. C. Saradambal [CITATION]: Cited regarding the duties of the First Appellate Court to consciously apply its mind to the findings and reasoning of the Trial Court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the following points in its reasoning:

The High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by disturbing concurrent findings of fact without identifying any perversity.
The questions framed by the High Court did not qualify as substantial questions of law.
The defendant failed to prove ownership by adverse possession.
The plaintiff’s ownership, derived from being the adopted son of the original owner, was not challenged and had attained finality.

Sentiment Analysis Ranking

Reason	Percentage
High Court’s improper disturbance of concurrent findings	30%
Questions framed not being substantial questions of law	25%
Failure of defendant to prove adverse possession	25%
Unchallenged ownership of the plaintiff	20%

Fact:Law Ratio

Category	Percentage
Fact (consideration of factual aspects)	60%
Law (consideration of legal aspects)	40%

The Court’s decision was influenced more by the factual aspects of the case, particularly the concurrent findings of the lower courts and the defendant’s failure to prove adverse possession, than by purely legal considerations.

Logical Reasoning

Issue: Whether the High Court was justified in overturning concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in Second Appeal.

Court’s Logical Reasoning:

Step 1: Review the questions framed by the High Court.

↓

Step 2: Determine if the questions are “substantial questions of law” as required by Section 100 CPC.

↓

Step 3: Apply the test from Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal to assess if the questions are debatable and not previously settled.

↓

Step 4: Conclude that the questions framed by the High Court are primarily questions of fact and do not meet the threshold of substantial questions of law.

↓

Step 5: Emphasize that High Courts should not disturb concurrent findings of fact unless perverse (based on precedents like Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari).

↓

Step 6: Find that the High Court’s interference was unwarranted because the defendant failed to prove adverse possession and the plaintiff’s ownership was unchallenged.

↓

Step 7: Set aside the High Court’s judgment and direct the tenant to hand over possession.

“In the present facts, the findings of perversity , in our view , are in themselves perverse.”

“This, in our view, is a finding o f fact which could not be disturbed by the Court in the Second Appeal , as it was not open for the Court to examine the evidence assuming First Appeal jurisdiction , unless the findings returned were perverse.”

“The tenant is hereby directed to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the subject premises within a period of three months from the date of this judgment.”

Key Takeaways

The tenant is directed to hand over vacant possession of the premises within three months.
The tenant must clear all arrears, including rent and utilities, within the same timeframe.
High Courts should be cautious in disturbing concurrent findings of fact in Second Appeals unless there is clear perversity.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the tenant to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the subject premises within three months from the date of the judgment. The tenant was further directed to clear all arrears, be it rent, utilities, or otherwise, within the same timeframe.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that High Courts should exercise caution and restraint in overturning concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court in Second Appeals, especially when the questions framed do not qualify as substantial questions of law. This judgment reinforces the established principles regarding the scope of Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and upholding the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court. The tenant was directed to hand over possession of the premises and clear all dues within three months, reinforcing the principles governing the scope of Second Appeals under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

FAQ

What does this judgment mean for landlords?
This judgment reinforces that if a Trial Court and First Appellate Court have both ruled in your favor in an eviction case, the High Court should be very cautious before overturning those decisions in a Second Appeal.
What does this judgment mean for tenants?
Tenants need to be aware that claiming adverse possession is difficult, especially if their initial entry into the property was with the owner’s permission. They must prove open, continuous, and hostile possession to claim ownership.
What is a “substantial question of law”?
A substantial question of law is a debatable legal issue that has not been previously settled by the highest court and has a material bearing on the decision of the case.
What is adverse possession?
Adverse possession is a legal doctrine that allows a person to claim ownership of a property if they have occupied it openly, continuously, and hostilely for a statutory period, even if they are not the legal owner.

Source: Rabindranath Panigrahi vs. Surendra Sahu