Concurrent findings on tenancy and possession, absent perversity, raise no substantial question of law.

Late Shri Devki Nandan Shastri was inducted as a tenant in Shop No. B-21, Sanatan Dharam Shopping Complex, and allegedly subdivided it into four portions, A–D.

Portions A and B were admittedly surrendered, while the appellant claimed that tenancy in Portions C and D continued with Shastri, thereafter devolved upon his wife Raj Dulari, and ultimately upon the appellant.

The respondents denied the appellant’s tenancy rights in Portion D and asserted that Shastri had surrendered that portion in 1977, after which Respondent No. 6 entered into possession and continued the business there.

The Civil Judge dismissed the suit for possession, mandatory injunction, declaration regarding rent receipts and NOCs, rendition of accounts, and damages, holding that the rent receipts did not establish tenancy in Portion D and that the alleged licence or dhaba profit-sharing arrangement was unsupported by evidence.

The District Judge affirmed the dismissal in first appeal on 3 November 2025.

The appellant thereafter preferred the present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 read with Section 151 CPC.

The Court applied Section 100 CPC, under which a Regular Second Appeal lies only when a substantial question of law arises; concurrent findings of fact ordinarily warrant no interference where they are based on appreciation of the evidence.

The Court also applied the general evidentiary principle that the plaintiff seeking possession and injunction must establish his own subsisting legal right and entitlement to the relief claimed, rather than merely relying upon alleged weaknesses in the defence.

The Court considered the legal effect of tenancy documents, rent receipts, alleged surrender, testamentary disposition of tenancy rights, and the distinction between a tenancy and a licence.

The appellant’s pleadings also invoked Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act in relation to alleged dispossession, while the respondents raised objections under Section 26 CPC and the Court-fees Act; these objections were not the basis of the final dismissal.

The Court held that the rent receipts in Raj Dulari’s name merely described the premises as Shop No. B-21 and did not identify Portion D; since Portion C was admittedly occupied by the elder son’s branch, the receipts did not prove that rent for Portion D had been paid.

The alleged dhaba arrangement and licence in favour of Respondent No. 6 were unsupported by any licence document, accounts, business permit, receipt, or evidence of the claimed 40:60 profit-sharing arrangement.

The Will could not confer tenancy rights in Portion D unless Raj Dulari’s own subsisting tenancy in that portion was first established; the appellant failed to prove that Shastri had not surrendered it.

Against this, Respondent No. 6’s long possession since 1977 was corroborated by MCD challans and receipts, and his possession commenced during Shastri’s lifetime, weakening the appellant’s theory that he was later inducted by Raj Dulari as a licensee.

The Court further found that the minutes of the Sabha recorded the creation and recognition of the post of Chairman, while the RTI replies did not establish that the post or the NOCs were illegal.

The alleged non-production of earlier rent records could not substitute for the appellant’s failure to prove his own right.

The issues raised were therefore factual and had been concurrently decided against the appellant.

The evidence did not prove that Raj Dulari was a tenant in Portion D, that Respondent No. 6 was merely her licensee, or that the rent receipts, Will, and NOCs entitled the appellant to possession or injunction.

Since no substantial question of law arose and the findings of the courts below were concurrent findings of fact, the Regular Second Appeal was dismissed.

The pending applications were also disposed of.