This second appeal has been preferred by the defendant in O.S.No.157 of 1999 on the file of the Second Additional Sub Judge, Madurai confirmed in appeal in A.S.No.171 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Madurai.
2. The respondent herein laid the suit against the appellant for a judgment and decree directing the appellant to hand over peaceful possession of the suit property to the respondent and to pay damages for use and occupation from July 1994 onwards and till delivery of possession. According to the respondent, the suit property belongs to the Malayalam Krishnaiyer Chatram Vedapadasala etc., Charities and the suit property was given to the employees of the trust for their residence. The appellant was an employee of the respondent and as the service of the appellant was terminated, the respondent called upon the appellant to vacate the property and as he failed to comply with the request, the respondent filed the suit before the trial Court for recovery of possession.
3. The appellant filed written statement and contested the matter. According to the appellant, the suit property is a Thoppu, in which more than 45 families are residing on the basis of valid lease and the appellant is one among them and he is a tenant in possession of the property for more than 20 years and he built the house in the suit property and is residing there and he has also been paying rent regularly. It is the further case of the appellant that he was working under the respondent during the year 1982-1984 and his service was terminated subsequently, which made him to raise a dispute in I.D.No.36 of 1993. It is also his contention that though he tendered the rent to the respondent, the respondent refused to receive the same and as such, the rent happened to be arrears.
4. The trial Court framed three issues and another additional issue and answered the primary issues against the appellant and the respondent was granted a decree as prayed for.
5. The judgment and decree dated 08.01.2004 in O.S.No.157 of 1999 was challenged by the appellant herein before the Principal District Court, Madurai in A.S.No.171 of 2004, wherein the appellant assailed the findings of the trial Court on various grounds.
6. The learned Principal District Judge, Madurai, by formulating the points for determination, considered the case of the appellant as well as the respondent on the basis of their respective pleadings and the evidence on record and dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the decree and judgment of the trial Court.
7. The decree dated 03.12.2004 in A.S.No.171 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Madurai is the subject matter of the present appeal.
8. When the appeal came up for admission on 16.07.2007, this Court ordered notice of motion and on appearance of the respondent, as per order dated 07.08.2007, the appeal was directed to be posted for final hearing during the time of admission and accordingly, the second appeal was taken up for final disposal on consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side.
9. The following substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present second appeal:
"Whether the findings of the Court below on the basis of appreciation of evidence on record could be termed as perverse warranting interference in an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure?".
10. In the factual back ground indicated above and with respect to the substantial question of law raised in the appeal, I have heard Mr.S.Alagarsamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.V.Sitharanjandas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
11. The fact that the property belongs to the respondent is not in dispute. It is also admitted that the appellant was put in possession of the property by the respondent with liability to pay rent. According to the respondent, the appellant was permitted to stay in the schedule property, as he happens to be an employee of the respondent. The appellant appears to have taken inconsistent pleas with respect to his nature of possession of the suit property which is evident from his written statement as well as in his evidence. Though initially the defendant indicated that he was in possession of property as an employee of the plaintiff, subsequently he denied it altogether and tried to project the case of tenancy of more than 20 years and putting up structure at his cost in the property.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the service of the appellant under the respondent Chatram was terminated which resulted in filing the suit for eviction against the appellant. It is his further case that the industrial dispute raised by him in I.D.No.36 of 1993 before the Labour Court, Madurai ended in his favour and there was an Award setting aside his termination. It is also admitted that as against the Award in I.D.No.36 of 1993, the respondent herein preferred a writ petition and there is an order of stay of the execution of the Award. The learned counsel for the appellant, without taking note of the contention in the written statement, would submit that in view of the Award in I.D.No.36 of 1993, the appellant is entitled to stay in the suit property and the pendency of the writ petition will not enable the respondent to evict the appellant, inasmuch as the appellant was put in possession of the property only as an employee and so long as he continue to be an employee, he is entitled to be in possession of the property. It is the further contention of the appellant that as he is residing in the residential house in the suit property and also in view of the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent may not be permitted to go ahead with the eviction proceedings.
13. I have considered the rival submission with respect to the pleadings and also on the basis of the evidence available on record.
14. The suit property admittedly belongs to the respondent and the respondent was inducted into possession as a lessee and even according to the appellant, he has been paying rent to the respondent and subsequently the respondent refused to receive the rent and as such, it fell into arrears. The trial Court as well as the first appellate court, on the basis of the evidence on record, came to a conclusion that the appellant is liable to be evicted from the premises. The trial Court also found that the tenancy was terminated by a proper notice and the said finding has also been confirmed by the first appellate Court.
15. The appellant's contention is solely based on the alleged termination and the Award of the Labour Court setting aside the termination. The employment of the appellant in the premises of the respondent has absolutely no relevance to the issue in the present appeal, inasmuch as admittedly the property belongs to the respondent and the tenancy was validly terminated by issuing quit notice by the respondent. There is no challenge with respect to the procedure adopted by the respondent in terminating the tenancy and being a suit for ejectment, once it is held that the tenancy was validly terminated, there is nothing more to be proved to order eviction.
16. After the amendment of the Civil Procedure Code, the High Court exercising power under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure could interfere in the judgment of the Court below only on substantial question of law and unless and until the findings are shown to be perverse based on no evidence, the same cannot be set aside in a second appeal. The first appellate Court is the final Court of facts and as such, there is very limited scope for interference in a second appeal in respect of such findings on question of fact. The findings rendered by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court in the present suit cannot be termed to be perverse or made in disregard of the evidence on record or on the basis of misconstruction of documents warranting interference by this Court.
17. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere in the findings of the Courts below and as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
18. In the result, this Second appeal is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. The appellant is granted one year time to hand over vacant possession of the property to the respondent on his filing affidavit of undertaking to vacate the premises within the time so granted, failing which the respondent would be at liberty to execute the decree in the manner known to law. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
SML To
1.The Principal District Court, Madurai.
2.The Second Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai.