IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6246 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.14628 of 2006)

Arun Kumar Keshari                 ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Ganesh & Ors.                ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Leave granted.

The suit filed by Smt. Sushila Devi – predecessor of the  

appellant herein for eviction of the tenant, namely, Panna  

alias Pannalal on the ground of default in payment of rent  

and subletting the tenanted premises, i.e., shop to Bullu  

alias  Bhagelu  was  decreed  by  Additional  Small  Causes  

Judge,  Varanasi  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  “the  trial  

Court”) vide judgment dated 17.11.1999.    The revision  

filed  by  Bullu  and  Pannalal  under  Section  25  of  the  

Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 [for short, “the  

Act”] was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Varanasi  

(appellate  Court),  which  independently  evaluated  and  

analysed  the pleadings  and evidence  of the  parties and  

concurred with the findings recorded by the trial Court on  

the issues of default and subletting.  

Bullu and Pannalal challenged the orders of the  

trial and appellate Courts by filing writ petition, which  

has  been  allowed  by  the  impugned  order.   The  learned  

Single Judge upset the concurrent findings recorded by the  

two courts, set aside the order of eviction and dismissed  

the suit.  Hence, this appeal by special leave.

....2/-

- 2 -

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and  

perused  the  record.   The  trial  Court  after  threadbare  

consideration  of  the  factual  matrix  of  the  case  and  

evidence of the parties, recorded a categorical finding  

that  Pannalal was  tenant of  the demise  premises, i.e.,  

shop and that the tenant not only committed default in  

payment of rent, but also sublet the shop to Bullu without  

the consent of the landlord.  The trial Court specifically  

rejected the theory that Purushottam and not Pannalal was  

the  tenant.   The  trial  Court  further  held  that  Bullu  

cannot claim any right over the shop in question.

These  findings  were  confirmed  by  the  appellate  

Court.   

The  High  Court  interfered  with  the  concurrent  

findings of fact without adverting to the pleadings of the  

case and evidence produced by the parties.  It has not  

come to the conclusion that the findings of fact recorded  

by the two courts were perverse.  Rather the writ petition  

has  been  decided  only  on  the  basis  of  surmises  and  

conjectures.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents also  

failed to point out any patent infirmity in the findings  

recorded by the trial Court and appellate Court on the  

issue of subletting.  Therefore, the order passed by the  

High Court cannot be sustained.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order  

rendered  by  the  High  Court  is  set  aside  and  the  writ  

petition filed by the respondents is dismissed.

The respondents are granted time till 30th June,  

2010, to vacate the premises in question upon filing usual  

undertaking  in  this Court  within four weeks from today.

....3/-

- 3 -

It is directed that in case the respondents fail to vacate  

the  premises in  question within  the aforesaid  time, it  

would be open to the decree holder to file an execution  

petition for delivery of possession and in case such a  

petition has been already filed, an application shall be  

filed therein to the effect that the respondents have not  

vacated the premises in question within the time granted  

by this Court.  In either eventuality, the Executing Court  

is not required to issue any notice to the respondents.  

The Executing Court will see that delivery of possession  

is effected within a period of fifteen days from the date  

of  filing of  the execution  petition or  the application  

aforementioned.  In case for delivery of possession any  

armed force is necessary, the same shall be deputed by the  

Superintendent of Police within forty eight hours from the  

date  requisition  is  received  therefore.   It  is  also  

directed  that  in  case  anybody  else,  other  than  the  

respondents,  is  found  in  possession,  he  shall  also  be  

dispossessed from the premises in question.

......................J.            [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.            [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, September 14, 2009.