1/\ HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR APPELLANT^ Plaintiffs (Land Lord) SECOND APPEAL N0. 524/2005 1. Ravi Bhushan S/o Kanhaiya Lal aged about 47 years R/o Village SangiTarai, Tehsil & Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 2. Bhagwati Prasad S/o Kanhaiya Lal aged about 43 years R/o Village Sangi Tarai & Distt. Raigarh. RESPONDENTS Defendants (L.R.s. of ^riginal Tenant) VERSUS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Bajrang Lal S/o Murari Lal aged 47 years Mohan Lal S/o Murari Lal, aged 42 years Sohan Lal S/o Murari Lal aged 37 years Chaturbhuj S/o Murari Lal aged 35 years Ghanshyam S/o Murari Lal aged 32 years MEMORANDUM OF A^PEAL_U/SJJOO OF THE CODE OFLCIVIL PROCEDURE. (SB :Hon'b!e Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri S.N. Nande, Advocate for the appellants. Respondents not noticed. ORAL- JUDGMENT (Passedon 28/08/2010) 1. By this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 appellants have challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree of dismissal of appeal dated 12/8/2005 passed by First Additional District Judge, Raigarh in Ciyil Appeal No. 31-A/2002 affirming the judgment and decree of dismissal of civil suit dated 31/1/2002 passed by Second Civil Judge Class-II, Raigarh in Civil Suit No. 61-A/1999 whereby suit filed on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs for eviction of the tenanted accommodation against the respondents on the ground of bona&de need for non-residential purpose and default in payment of rent, Learned Second Civil Judge Class-II, Raigarh has dismissed the suit 2- yi c and arrived on the ground that tenanted accommodation is not required bonafidely to the appellants for their business, Lower Appellate Court has also dismissed the appeal on the same ground. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant Shri S.N. Nande are heard. 3. Judgment and decree impugned and record of the Courts below perused. 4. Leai-ned counsel for the appellants submits that in the present case, substantial question of law would be that whether findings of both the Courts below are perverse relating to absence of bonafide need of the appellants. 5. As per notice vide Ex. P-3 accommodation was required for residence and office at the time offiling the suit in the year 1995 the eviction was sought on the ground of arrears of rent status of respondents as encroacher and for residence and business.in the •*' year 1998 ^tee plaint was amended relating to bonafide need for opening "TrroTT (cb'd'ii '^qtii'4 along with residence. In the year 2001 again plaint was amended need relating to residence (Picii'i'i ) was deleted. It clearly shows that appellants were not certain for their need. In case of eviction under Section 12 (l)(f) of the C.G. Accommodation Control Act, landlord is required to prove bonafide need of the suit, accominodation for non-residential purpose, need must be bonafide and not as a dire need. In the present case, right from notice Ex. P-3, the plaint and its amendment reveals that need of the plaintiffs/appellants were not bonafide therefore, both the Courts beldw has rightly dismissed the suit, I do not find any substantial question of law for decision of this second appeal. R:EiRE^!i'^SVSS"?S^ --3 Consequently, second appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 6. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge