Supreme Court: While setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court with respect to eviction of tenant on the ground of unauthorized construction in violation of the rent agreement, T.S. Thakur, CJ. and Kurian Joseph, J. held that the strained effort made by the High Court in second appeal to arrive at a different finding is wholly unwarranted apart from being impermissible under law.
Relying on a plethora of judgments passed by the Supreme Court in this regard including Kulwant Kaur v. Gurdial Singh Mann (Dead) by Lrs. (2001) 4 SCC 262, S.R. Tiwari v. Union of India (2013) 6 SCC 602 and Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Administration, Through Secretary (Labour) (1984) 4 SCC 635, the Court held that the first appellate court under Code of Civil Procedure is the last court of facts. The High Court in second appeal cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court unless the said findings are based on no evidence or are perverse which is not the case in the current matter.
Observing that “the facts unfold the plight of a poor landlord languishing in courts for over forty years” and that “the saddest part is that the High Court in second appeal, went against him on a pure question of fact” the court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restored that of the trial court as confirmed by the appellate court. [Damodar Lal v. Sohan Devi, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 5, Decided on January 5, 2016]
The word “slams” is not appropriate for court reporting. The Supreme Court never slams but interferes with the finding or rectifies the error committed by the High Court(s) or some time by Tribunals. High Courts are not lowly to be slammed by Supreme Court. I request you to please advise your reporters to be more generous towards the prestige of the Courts.