Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.18 seconds)Jamnalal & Ors vs Radheshyam on 18 April, 2000
5. Shri Nilesh Kotecha, learned counsel for the appellant, after taking
me through the pleadings and the evidence of the case firstly argued the
matter at length but in view of the facts that the decree granted by the trial
court under section 12(1)(p) of the Act was not assailed in the argument
before the first appellate court, as appeared from the impugned judgment
and, also in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of
Jamnalal and others Vs. Radheshyam (2000) 4 SCC 380 answering
the question with respect of the ground enumerated under section 12(1)(a)
of the Act, on making some query, in response of the same, counsel instead
to argue further on merits for admission said that in any case if this court
comes to the conclusion that the present appeal does not involve any
substantial question of law then in such circumstance, by adopting some
lenient view, period of six months be extended to the appellant for vacating
the disputed premises and prayed for admission by allowing this appeal.
Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs Savitkibai Sopan Gujar An Dors on 16 April, 1999
6. Having heard the counsel, I have carefully gone through the records
and the impugned judgment. It is undisputed position in the matter that on
appreciation of the evidence, the trial court has passed the aforesaid decree
of eviction in favour of the respondent on the ground under section 12(1)(a)
and 12(1)(p) of the Act. In appeal, the same has been upheld. Accordingly,
there is a concurrent findings of the courts below in respect of the aforesaid
grounds against the appellant. It is settled proposition of the law that the
concurrent findings based on appreciation of the evidence of the courts
below, howsoever are erroneous, the same could not be interfered at this
stage under section 100 of the CPC as laid down by the Apex Court in the
4
matter of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitri Bai Sopan Gurjar-AIR
1999 SC 2213.
1