Second Appeal No. 71 of 2003

17th February, 2012

Petitioner Counsel: Shri SUDIN USGAONKAR
Respondent Counsel: Shri D. J. PANGAM

Cases Cited:
M.S.V. Raja and another Vs. Seeni Thevar and others, (2001) 6 SCC 652 [Para 13]
Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and others, 2006(5) ALL MR 140=(2007) 1 SCC 546 [Para 14,15]
Nepal Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 2146 (S.C.) =(2009) 12 SCC 351 [Para 14,15]
Maruti Balwant Pawar and others Vs. Mahatma Phule Agricultural University, (2008) B.C.I. 49 [Para 14,15]
Kehar Singh Vs. Yash Pal and others, AIR 1990 SC 2212 [Para 14]

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- This Second Appeal is filed by the legal heirs of the original plaintiff of Special Civil Suit No. 56/94/A against the Judgment and Decree passed by the First Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao (the first Appellate Court), in Regular Civil Appeal No. 23/2000, by which the Judgment and Decree dated 05/01/2000, of dismissal of the said Special Suit No. 56/94/A, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao (Trial Judge), has been upheld.

2.The original plaintiff had filed the said suit for eviction and recovery of license fees. The case of the plaintiff was that the respondent who was the defendant in the said suit was given a part of the house belonging to the plaintiff and consisting of two rooms, one kitchen, bath room and toilet (suit premises) on leave and license basis to reside therein, about 12 years prior to the filing of the suit, on monthly compensation of Rs. 450/-. The said license was terminated by original plaintiff by notice dated 07/01/1994 directing the defendant to vacate the suit premises by 31/01/1994. However the defendant did not comply with the said notice. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit.

3. The defendant by way of his written statement claimed to be a tenant of the suit premises.

4.Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the plaintiff could not establish that the possession of the defendant regarding the portion given to him by the plaintiff, including the toilet and bathroom, was not exclusive and that the joint use of the said W.C. and bathroom by original plaintiff and the defendant does not negate the exclusive possession of the suit premises by the defendant and further that the use of W.C. by the original plaintiff was limited and occasional. It was held that the transaction between the original plaintiff and the defendant was not merely of a licence but of lease (tenancy). Learned Trial Judge therefore dismissed the suit and the learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal.

5.This Second Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law namely:

(I)Whether the Courts below were right in holding that joint use of the W.C. and bathroom by the original plaintiff and the respondent does not negate the exclusive possession of the respondent.

(II)Whether the finding of the Courts below that the use of W.C. by the original plaintiff as 'limited' and 'occasional', is contrary to the evidence on record.

6.Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, the learned advocate argued on behalf of the legal heirs of the plaintiff whereas Shri. D.J. Pangam, the learned Advocate argued on behalf of the respondent.

7.Learned counsel for the plaintiff pointed out that there was no written contract between the parties and there was only an oral understanding between them. According to him, as per the said understanding, bathroom and W.C. were for common use of the residence of the plaintiff as well as of the defendant. He invited the attention of this Court to the deposition of DW 1, in the cross-examination, where he has admitted that the bathroom and W.C. adjacent to the two rooms allotted to him were also used by the plaintiff till 1984 and the plaintiff used to enter the portion allotted to the defendant by opening the latch to the door of his room, from inside. According to him, a dwelling unit must have a bathroom and W.C. and hence these two cannot be taken as separate parts. Therefore, he would contend that the evidence on record is sufficient to prove that the premises given to the defendant was not in his exclusive possession but the control was still with the plaintiff who had retained the right of entry and use of bathroom and W.C. located in the suit premises given to the defendant. He argued that the position was such that the plaintiff could go to the portion occupied by the defendant, at any time, through the door for which there was only one latch which was on the plaintiff's side, whenever he wanted, without permission of the defendant. He further argued that only in the year 1984, the defendant started objecting to the use of W.C. by the plaintiff due to which the plaintiff constructed a new W.C. However, according to Shri Usgaonkar, the intention of the parties at the threshold was important. He urged that in ascertaining the character of transaction, the intention of the parties at the time of handing over possession, is the only real test and therefore the objection of the defendant in 1984 has no relevance. He further argued that when there was admission of such user by the plaintiff made by the defendant and his witnesses, Section 60 of the Evidence Act was not applicable and PW1 and his witnesses had to be believed. He further argued that the right of the plaintiff to enter and use the premises given to the defendant will not be proved by the criteria of number of visits and if there is a solitary visit, that being, as of right, will serve the purpose. He argued that admittedly the original plaintiff used to come to the premises once in a year and therefore this was perennial. It was known to the defendant that the original plaintiff would be coming every year. Therefore, it is submitted that it cannot be stated that the use of the W.C./ bath room by the plaintiff was limited or occasional. Even otherwise there cannot be a limited user of W.C. / bathroom and the same has to be full.

8.Per contra, Shri D. J. Pangam, learned counsel for the defendant, submitted that substantial questions arise from the pleadings of parties. He invited my attention to the Plaint wherein there is no pleading that the original plaintiff had control over the W.C. / bathroom or that the bath room / W.C. was reserved for his use by the original plaintiff. He read out the deposition of PW1 and contended that the same shows that out of the flat, two rooms, one kitchen, W.C. and bathroom were allotted to the defendant and other portion of the said flat that is hall and one W.C. had been retained by the plaintiff. He further pointed out that PW 1 has then stated that the said premises was given to the defendant in the year 1980 and at that time the license fee was Rs. 350/- per month and subsequently it was increased to Rs. 450/- per month when they constructed a separate W.C. PW 1 has thereafter stated that earlier one W.C. was used by the plaintiff as well as by the defendant in common but subsequently the defendant objected and therefore they constructed a new W.C. Shri D. J. Pangam, learned counsel for the defendant, therefore, states that this conduct of the plaintiff shows that it was the defendant who had full control over the said W.C./bathroom and there was permissive use of same by the plaintiff. He pointed out that though the defendant stopped the plaintiff from using the W.C. In 1984, however, the plaintiff peacefully and quietly constructed a new W.C. for himself and filed the suit in 1994 that is after about 10 years. He then urged that the parameters in second appeal are very strict. According to him, since the findings on facts have strong foundation and since there are concurrent findings, the substantial questions will not have any bearing.

9.Perused the entire material on record.

10.Though there are two substantial questions to be answered, the main is the first one. It has been held by both the Courts below that the plaintiff could not prove that the defendant is not in exclusive possession of the suit premises occupied by him. It was contended before the Trial Judge that the owner was entitled to enter the premises allotted to the defendant and therefore the defendant cannot be held to be in exclusive possession of the suit premises. However, the Trial Judge has held that PW 1 has specifically admitted in the chief itself that the defendant objected for using the W.C. attached to his portion and therefore the plaintiff constructed a new W.C. attached to his portion and this clearly shows that the possession of the defendant in respect of the suit premises is exclusive. The First Appellate Court has observed that an important feature of Lessee's right is his right to possession and enjoyment of the premises to the exclusion of the lessor. The First Appellate Court has also referred to the deposition of PW 1 where he has stated that earlier the W.C. in the suit premises was used by them and the defendant in common, however, subsequently, the defendant objected and therefore they constructed a new W.C. The First Appellate Court has pointed out that the above fact has not been pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint despite which PW 1 has stated the same in his chief. The First Appellate Court has, therefore, held that the plaintiff cannot be heard to say that the defendant has nowhere stated that he permitted the plaintiff to use his W.C. Both the Courts below have held that mere occasional use of W.C. by the plaintiff who otherwise resides at Bombay and occasionally comes down to Goa, is not sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that the occupation of the suit premises by the defendant was not to the exclusion of the plaintiff.

11.In the Plaint, it has been pleaded that the said house consists of only ground floor and a part of the said house consisting of two rooms, one kitchen, bathroom and toilet was given on oral leave and licence to the defendant to reside, about twelve years back. There is no pleading in the Plaint that the bathroom and toilet was kept common for the plaintiff and the defendant or that the control of entry to the portion occupied by the defendant was with the plaintiff. There is no pleading that there was only one latch to the door of the room of the plaintiff which door was opening into the portion of the defendant. In fact, there is no pleading that the plaintiff was using the toilet and the bathroom which were in the portion given to the defendant. The plaintiff has tried to make improvements in his case by leading evidence on the material facts not pleaded. The plaintiff quietly and peacefully stopped using the bathroom and toilet as the same was objected to by the defendant in 1987 and built a separate toilet for himself and waited for about 10 years to file the suit for eviction. It cannot be said that the courts below erred in holding that the joint use of the W.C. and bathroom by the original plaintiff and the defendant does not negate the exclusive possession of the defendant. Even if the said user by the plaintiff may not be strictly called as limited and occasional, however, certainly the same was permissive.

12.As has been rightly argued by learned Counsel Shri D.J. Pangam, there are concurrent findings of facts, based on strong foundation.

13.In the case of "M.S.V. Raja and another versus Seeni Thevar and others" [(2001) 6 SCC 652], relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, it has been held that the formulation of substantial question of law may be inferred from the kind of questions actually considered and decided by Second Appellate Court, even though the substantial questions of law were not specifically and separately formulated. However, the above citation is of no assistance to the plaintiff, in view of the discussion supra and the findings arrived at, as above.

14.Shri. D. J. Pangam, learned counsel for the defendant, has relied upon the following judgments:

I)Gurdev Kaur and others v/s. Kaki and others [(2007) 1 SCC 546] : [2006(5) ALL MR 140 (S.C.)]

II)Nepal Singh v/s. State of Haryana [(2009) 12 SCC 351] : [2009 ALL MR (Cri) 2146 (S.C.)]

III)Maruti Balwant Pawar and others v/s. Mahatma Phule Agricultural University [(2008) B.C.I. 49]

IV)Kehar Singh v/s. Yash Pal and others [AIR 1990 SC 2212]

15.In the case of "Gurdev Kaur and others v/s. Kaki and others"[(2007) 1 SCC 546] : [2006(5) ALL MR 140 (S.C.)], the nature and scope of Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure before and after 1976 amendment has been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Apex Court has held that even before the 1976 amendment, the scope of interference under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code was limited and the consistent position was that the Court should not interfere with concurrent findings on fact. The Apex Court has further held that now, after 1976 amendment, the scope under Section 100 has been drastically curtailed and narrowed down. The High Court would have jurisdiction of interfering under section 100 of Civil Procedure Code only in a case where the substantial questions of law are involved and those questions have been clearly formulated in the memorandum of appeal. It has been held that the legislative indication is very clear that that legislature never wanted second appeal to become "third trial on facts" or "one more dice in the gamble". In the case of "Nepal Singh v/s. State of Haryana" [(2009) 12 SCC 351] : [2009 ALL MR (Cri) 2146 (S.C.)], the parameters for dealing with an appeal against judgment of acquittal have been restated. In the case of "Maruti Balwant Pawar and others v/s. Mahatma Phule Agricultural University" [(2008) B.C.I. 49], the learned Single Judge of the Aurangabad Bench of this High Court has refused to interfere in the Second Appeals as there were concurrent findings of facts recorded by Courts below, since in terms of the Apex Court ruling, a second appeal cannot be decided on merely equitable grounds; the court must distinguish between a question of law and a substantial question of law; a substantial question of law must be distinguished from a question of fact; and concurrent findings of fact, however, erroneous, cannot be disturbed under section 100 of C.P.C. In the present case before me, the finding that the joint use of W.C. and bathroom by original plaintiff and respondent does not negate the exclusive possession of the respondent, is essentially a finding of fact and there is concurrent finding on this point. Therefore, this Court in Second Appeal should not interfere.

16.In the result, the substantial questions are liable to be answered against the plaintiff. There is no merit in this appeal and consequently, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Ordered accordingly.