Concurrent Findings of Fact Denying Tenant Protection Under Rent Control Act Cannot Be Disturbed in Second Appeal

The plaintiff (respondent) filed a title suit (TS 15/2010) seeking eviction, recovery of possession, and arrear rents, claiming that the the defendant (appellant) was a tenant who defaulted on rent since January 2009.

The defendant contested the suit, claiming that while he occupied the land, the Assam-type pucca house thereon was built by his father, and further argued that rent was paid via adjustments for goods and cash.

The Trial Court (Munsiff, Charaideo) decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, finding the defendant to be a "defaulter" under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972.

This was affirmed by the First Appellate Court (Civil Judge, Sivasagar) in Title Appeal No. 4/2018.

The appellants challenged these concurrent findings in the present second appeal.

1. Whether the decree passed by the learned Appellate Court below affirming the decree of the Trial Court, without any observation regarding the trial of the suit as per the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, is illegal?

Doctrine of Merger, which stipulates that once an appellate court disposes of an appeal after a contested hearing, the trial court's decree merges into the appellate decree.

Section 100 of the CPC: High Courts cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless perverse.

Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Relief against forfeiture for non-payment of rent is generally inapplicable in the absence of a formal lease agreement with a forfeiture clause.

A tenant cannot claim "double protection" under both Rent Control Acts and the Transfer of Property Act.

Both lower courts arrived at a concurrent finding of fact that the defendant was a "defaulter".

Under the Doctrine of Merger, the Trial Court’s detailed findings regarding the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act became part of the Appellate Court’s decree; thus, the Appellate Court's lack of redundant observation did not render its judgment illegal.

Since the appellant submitted to the jurisdiction of the lower courts and failed to raise the issue that the Rent Act did not apply to a village area (Sapekhati) earlier, he could not raise a new question of fact/jurisdiction at the second appeal stage.

The Court rejected the plea for relief under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, as there was no evidence of a formal lease containing a forfeiture clause, and the relationship was governed by rent control principles.

The second appeal was dismissed, and the judgments of the lower courts were upheld, holding that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the tenancy and default were binding.