Supreme Court Upholds Eviction Order, Emphasizes Proper Framing of Legal Questions in Second Appeals: Rashmi Kant Vijay Chandra & Ors. vs. Baijnath Choubey & Company (2024)

Date of the Judgment: September 13, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 688

Judges: J.K. Maheshwari, J. and Sanjay Karol, J.

Can a High Court overturn the factual findings of a lower appellate court in a second appeal without framing a specific question of law regarding those findings? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a landlord-tenant dispute, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural requirements under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The core issue revolved around whether the High Court of Calcutta erred in setting aside the First Appellate Court’s decision based on a factual finding of sub-letting, when the substantial questions of law framed for the second appeal did not include this issue. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case involves a long-standing dispute between the trustees of a property (plaintiff-appellants) and a tenant (defendant-respondent). The dispute began on February 19, 1933, when Harak Chand Veljee settled premises at Ezra Street, Calcutta, into a trust. Baijnath Choubey became a tenant of part of this property under the name M/s. B.N. Choubey and Company. After Baijnath Choubey’s death, a trust was created to care for his son, who was in an asylum. The plaintiff-appellants alleged that after the son’s death in 1949, the trustees of the tenant’s trust formed an illegal partnership and were carrying on business fraudulently. They also claimed the tenant had illegally sub-let the premises. On July 22, 1984, the plaintiff-appellants served an eviction notice and subsequently filed a suit for eviction.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court dismissed the eviction suit, ruling in favor of the defendant on several issues, including the maintainability of the suit and the relationship of landlord and tenant, but found that the defendant had sublet the premises. The plaintiff-appellants appealed to the First Appellate Court, which reversed the Trial Court’s decision and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff-appellants, holding that the defendant had sublet the premises and was liable to be evicted. The High Court of Calcutta, in a second appeal, overturned the First Appellate Court’s decision, stating that the suit was not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary parties and that there was no evidence of sub-letting. The High Court framed three questions of law regarding the impleadment of the defendant and the necessity of including the legal representatives of Baijnath Choubey. However, in its final judgment, the High Court also addressed the issue of sub-letting, which was not part of the framed questions of law.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): This section deals with second appeals to the High Court. It specifies that a second appeal can only be heard on a substantial question of law that has been framed at the time of admission of the appeal. The court emphasized that the High Court cannot go beyond the framed questions of law.
• Order XXX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): This rule pertains to suits by or against a firm. The High Court had observed that the suit was not maintainable for not impleading the trustees of the trust created by the original tenant, Baijnath Choubey, in breach of this rule.

Arguments

Arguments of the Plaintiff-Appellants:

• The plaintiff-appellants argued that the High Court erred in overturning the First Appellate Court’s findings.
• They contended that the High Court’s decision was flawed because it addressed the issue of sub-letting, which was not a substantial question of law framed at the time of admission of the second appeal.
• They also argued that the defendant-respondent had participated in the suit without raising any objection regarding the non-joinder of necessary parties in the written statement before the Trial Court, and therefore, the suit should not have been dismissed on this ground.

Arguments of the Defendant-Respondent:

• The defendant-respondent argued that the suit was not maintainable because the plaintiff-appellants had not impleaded all the necessary parties, specifically the trustees of the trust created by Baijnath Choubey.
• They contended that the defendant was a trade name and not a juristic person and hence, the suit could not be maintained against it.
• They also argued that there was no evidence of sub-letting, and therefore, the First Appellate Court’s decision was incorrect.

[TABLE] of Submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues, but it addressed the following points:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the suit was not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary parties.
2. Whether the High Court was correct in overturning the First Appellate Court’s finding of sub-letting when no such question was framed as a substantial question of law in the second appeal.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed Gajendra Narain Singh v. Johrimal Prahlad Rai AIR 1964 SC 581 to hold that the defendant’s appearance without protest was deemed to be on behalf of the firm.
• The Supreme Court relied on Dnyanoba Bhaurao Shemade v. Maroti Bhaurao Marnor (1999) 2 SCC 471, Kshitish Chandra Purkait v. Santosh Kumar Purkait (1997) 5 SCC 438, Sheel Chand v. Prakash Chand (1998) 6 SCC 683, Narayanan Rajendran v. Lekshmy Sarojini (2009) 5 SCC 264, Hardeep Kaur v. Malkiat Kaur (2012) 4 SCC 344, Kirpa Ram v. Surendra Deo Gaur (2021) 13 SCC 57 and Suresh Lataruji Ramteke v. Sau. Sumanbhai Pandurang Petkar and Ors. 2023 SCC Online SC 1210 to emphasize that the High Court’s jurisdiction in second appeals under Section 100 of the CPC is limited to the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission of the appeal.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural requirements under Section 100 of the CPC. The Court emphasized that the High Court cannot go beyond the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission of the second appeal. The Court also noted that the defendant had not raised the issue of non-joinder of necessary parties in the written statement before the Trial Court, which indicated that the suit was maintainable. The Court’s focus was on ensuring that the High Court adhered to the established legal procedures for second appeals, rather than re-evaluating the factual findings of the lower appellate court.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The court emphasized, “The High Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC only on the basis of substantial questions of law which are to be framed at the time of admission of the second appeal and the second appeal has to be heard and decided only on the basis of such duly framed substantial questions of law.”

The Court also noted, “Pertinently, before the Trial Court, in the written statement, there is no reference made to the non-joinder of necessary parties.”

Further, the Court stated, “The impugned judgment overturns the finding of fact of the First Appellate Court qua sub-letting without framing a substantial question of law in this regard at any stage.”

Key Takeaways

• High Courts must strictly adhere to the procedure under Section 100 of the CPC when hearing second appeals.
• Substantial questions of law must be framed at the time of admission of the second appeal, and the High Court cannot go beyond these questions.
• If a defendant participates in a suit without raising the issue of non-joinder of necessary parties, they cannot later claim that the suit is not maintainable on this ground.
• The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the importance of procedural compliance in appellate proceedings.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondent-defendant to hand over vacant physical possession of the suit property by December 31, 2024. Any dues up to the date of occupation shall be borne by the respondent-defendant.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court cannot overturn the factual findings of a lower appellate court in a second appeal without framing a specific question of law regarding those findings. This decision reinforces the established position of law regarding the scope of Section 100 of the CPC, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance in appellate proceedings. The Supreme Court has not changed the previous position of law but has reiterated the same.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and affirming the First Appellate Court’s decision. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements under Section 100 of the CPC and held that the High Court had erred in overturning the First Appellate Court’s findings on the issue of sub-letting without framing a substantial question of law in this regard. The Court also held that the suit was maintainable as the defendant had participated without raising an objection to non-joinder of necessary parties. This decision underscores the necessity for High Courts to strictly adhere to the established legal procedures for second appeals.