HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Second Appeal No.l of 2009 APPELLANT/: (Defendant) RESPONDENTS/: (Plaintiffs) Vinay Singh Pawar, S/o Prahlad Singh Pawar, aged about 38 years, Caste Kshatriya, Occupation Business, R/o Vardhmannagar, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil & Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versys 1. Rohini Prasad Gupta, S/o Late Shri Shyamsundar Gupta, aged about 57 years, Occupation Business, 2. Gagandip Gupta, S/o Rohini Prasad Gupta, aged about 21 years, Occupation None. 3. Ku. Gunja Gupta, D/o Rohini Prasad Gupta, aged about 23 years, All the respondents R/o Kavita Complex, Kaurinbhatta, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) {Second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908} Present: Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, counsel forthe appellant. Mr. B.P. Gupta, counsel for the respondents. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. J ORAL ORDER (4-8-2009) 1. Heard. 2. Learned counsel for the appellaht submits that he has paid the court feeS'of Rs.3,244/-. 3. Consequently, I.A.No.2 fjled on behalf of the appellantunder Section 149 of the C.P.C. stands disposed of. ' 4. This is second appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C. against the judgment & decree dated 17-9-2008 & 22-9-2008, respectively, passed by the District Judge, Rajnandgaon in Civil Appeal No.34- A/2008 affirming the judgment & decree dated 11-12-2007 passed by the 1st Civil Judge Class-I, Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit No.9-A/2002. ^%. "^ '^t, 1 BSiiS-i^ g/ 5. Judgment & decree are challenged on the ground that the Courts below have not considered the delivery possession on behalf of the appellant in the year 2003. 6. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that the present respondents are landlord and the appellant is tenant over the suit land. According to the finding of the trial Court possession was handed over by the appellant on 18-2-2007 and the suit was decreed for arrears of rent from 18-9-2001 till 18-2-2007. The lower appellate Court has also affirmed the finding that the present appellant has not handed over the possession of thesuit land till 18- 2-2007. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the appellant has filed an application before the trial Court for handover possession & key of the accommodation to the respondents, but the respondents have refused to receive the key & possession. Learned counsel further submits that the application filed by the appellant was dismissed in the year 2003. Both the Courts below have not considered the crucial facts ofthe case and the appellant has handed over the possession in the year 2003. 8. Para 15 of the judgment of the trial Court reveals that possession of the<yisputed property was handed over by the appellant to the respondents when the Commissioner was appointed on 18-2-2007. Learned lower appellate Court has also held in its detailed finding that the appellant has not tried to handover the possession of the disputed premises to the respondents till 18-2-2007. Concurrent findings of the Courts below are based on the evidence of the parties. The appellant himself has not handover the possession of the suit property in the year 2003 or prior to 18-2-2007. 9. On due consideration, I do not find any substantTal question of law for-the decision of this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order' as to costs. lO.Consequently, all the interim applications stand disposed of. Soma Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge vs^