^^-^'-^^^ ^•w^^^^ )7 />-e ^o IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SECONDAPPEAL No/3^ /2006^^^ ^- APPELLANT DEFENDANT .^ w RamChii^d S/o Durga Prasad Bani aged 56 years resident of and occupation Pan Selling opposite the Mukut Cinema ( Takies ) Bhatapara Tahsil and Nagar Palika town Bhatapara Distt. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS PLANTIFF ^",- Ram Bihari Agrawed 52 S/o Lakhan Lal Agrawal Aged 52 years cultivator land lord and Resident of Bhatapara opposite the Mukut Cinema ( Takies ) Bhatapara Tahsil and Nagarpalika Town Bhatapa Distt. Raipur (C.G.) CLAIM IN APPEAL AS IN THE ORIGINAL SUIT FOR EVICTION AND RECOVERY OF POSSION OF PAN SHOP UNDER {^. 12 (F) OF M.P. ACCOMODATION ^ ^/- ^- CONTROL ACT 1961 VALUED AT RS(^S007)- ^ONE l/^- THOUSANT EIGIIT IIUNDRED RS^-AND COURT FEES ANNEXED RS. 20/- (TWENTY) ^ SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE * ^^w XI-HC-78 3TI^T^T^ich c^TT3T1^T$bHi<^ *11*1^1 ?h*licb T5? «*11*IIC1*1, t9Tfty<|(o, (s(diy^< ^Tt^ ^>rl;^':^^:V-t*> ^ 200^ -^ • B • ^i;^^ ' 3TT^?TVS^K (l{c(I^6(<^IET) 5^TTW^cTW^T 16.01.2007 Appetlant by Siri Janal<| Advocate. Respondent by Shri h| Sangesfa Mishra, Advocate on <j cbl<Mfd4)-l ^l^clT^'tec<ft'<F3t«l< ^3ti^R'3TT^T Ram Verma ^ith Shri Santosh Sahu. !.B.Agr<wd, Sr. Advocate mth Ms. aveat. Shri J.R.Verma, Jearned| counsel for the appellant submitted that the defoult, as pointed ou1| by the Registry, has been removed and certified copy as welf as typed Heard on admtesron. The appellant is aggrievlsd passed by ^dditjonal District ^ whereby the judgment and dec^ Judge, C!ass»I, Balodcibazaar ir^ the ^uit for evi'ction on groundj busjness was affirmed. Shri J.R. Verma, learned avaitable to them. He ptaced r^ kopy have been fited. by the judgment dated 07.11.2006 Fudge jn Civi! Appeol No. 12-A of 2005 ee dated 25.11.2005 passed by the Civi! Civil Suit hto. 71-^ of 2002 decreeing of bonafide requirement for expanding counsel for the appetlant has contended that both the Courts behw hav|e erred m ignoring the admissions made by the plaintjff and his witness^s regarding alter'natjvs aceommodotion edance on Dew fdead) fhrauQh_LR^y. &iian Kumarfdead) by LRs. (20|03) 7 SCC 481. 0|02 I have considered the counsel for the appellant. I h arguments advanced by the learned |sve al^o perused the certified copy of XI-HC-78 W^T^lf^Tf^ cTSTTW^T^RT^ ^z *11*(^11 Sh+lich 3T5ET ^NId^, ^TH<HII<o, fa<ni<Hy __ S.AY<?,R^K^<^/, ;v^'Y~'L^ty200^ ^^ '^^9' ^l M^«*»(I?^3^?^) ^:(TTW^ri?cT3TT^T -^- the judgment of both the Cour evidence of the plaintiff and hi <=bi^f<n41Ti WT^ff^ fe^<Ri^i< ^3T^T3TT^T s behw as weff as certified copy of the ! wjtnesses and also of the defendant. I am of the considered c|pinjon that both the Courts betow have, on proper appraisal of the evid the respondent/plaintiffs bon<2|fide need for expanding busines^ of hte sons Rqjiv and Sandeep was esj that son of the plaintiff-Rqje^ in a shop adjacent to the t^ snce on record,recorded a finding that tablished. The mere fact of admission v Agra^at was running a computer shop ^nanted premises would not by itself extinguteh the bonafide need of the pjaintiff for expansion of business especial!y Jn view of the fact 1|hat Sandeep P.W.3, son of the plaintiff WQS unemp!oyed. Sandeep PW/|3 has ctearly stated that the portion of shop occupfed by his brother w|as congested and he wontsd to open his shop separateSy. 50 far as th coiTiputer shop of Rqjiv is co^^n^, he has clear'jy stated thot such portion is re^idential. So far| concerned, it is also worthwhil^ the suit accommodatton wa^ need of the plaintJff for expan| g newly constructed portfon behind the as ths testimony of the defendant is to mention that he has ajso nof denied in paragraph 2 thot the need of the ptaintiff for expanding business in bonafjde. Thus, there are no such admtestons on record ^hi'ch ^o|j(d negate the existence of a bonafjde mg his son's business. I am therefore of the consi'dered opinion that ^o substantid question of low is invoSved in this apped. As a result, tt| admission. There shall be no orlder as to costs. is appeal is dismissed at the stage of e^^a^ 3 XI-HC-78 sn^T^rf^TW cTSTT 3TI^T ^RT^ ^AA^ ^ (^. +11^(11 Sh*lich 3^'^pn^pr, ®Tn'y<i6,fsidw^< ,;?^^9.^^J. ^TM5|<D ?^TT^K€f?cT^T1^T 3- Shrt J.R.Verma, learnedl such time for vacating the pr^i just and iiece^ary to this Hon'^1 TTiree months' time froiti granted. Certified copy as per rul^ |counse( for the appelSant submlts that ^mjses may be grQnted, as may appear >?e Court. today to vacate the suit premtee^ is cbl^?<n<{)^ ^J^clTfffWt'<R«^K ^3Tf^'R'3T1^T s. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshniukh Judge P.T.O. >- ^ A' ^