CS) c^^ IN THE HON'BLE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURfC.G.) ^ SECONDAPPEALNO^^'2—OF 2009 Appellants. 1. /Defendants l^ ^^ ^.^•*':.^ 0^-' ^ Laxminarayaa Aged About 45 years S/o Babulal Dongre R/o Gandhi Chowk Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ^S.---;_^ '\Q^--'' fe^' AW "''. \.^v/ ^S^'I\-^/ ®'isBA..-^ !.<>•• •-• 1. LilaBai W/o Sudheer R/o Chokhadia Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Para VERSUS Respondenjs. <-• ^yiaintiff Ramayan ^ Singh, General Power of Attomey holder of- Dwarika Singh Aged About 38 years S/o Lt. Arjun Singh Rajpoot R/o Gumanpur, Post and Tah. - Khairagarh Disst.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION tOO READ WITH SECTION 103 AND ORDER 4fRULE 1 AND ^ORDER 41RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEWJRE, AFTER CAIAED ; ^Tal-I? 66 /^/VTkTT'9?'^ HIGH COWT OF CHHATTISGftRH W BILASPWt Sinate Bench: Hcm'bhs Shri Justfce Prashant Kumar Mishra Second Aoneal NoAt2/2009 ' Appellante Respondent Vereus Lawninwayan and another Ramaysui Sii^h. Shri Rakesh Thataw, counsel fior the appellanls. None for the respondent. Second Apneal under Sectkm 100 of Chnl ProceduwCdEle. ORALORDER * (18.02^010) Heard on adnnission. (2) The fdaintiff prefenwl a siut for evictton arri euTeM®<rfjpa* on the groundthat heneate tlw presert readentied prwrusestforWs own residential purpose a®weU as to accommodate Ns brotheiii^io vwll occupy <me ro<xn to continue his tegaA (wofes^pn, thCT^ore^ he is in bonafkie requiremCTi of ttre posse»k>n. He atso pra^ed<hiS*itHe ^^^ defendanls/sqipellants have not paid rent ftwn October 1995 and t--t'"llat therefore, a decree for arreare of rent may also be passed. (3) It was sterted by ttw (rfiuntUf that he is po^ed as a teErcher at vlltagfr Itar, KhaiRgarh, Rajnandgaon, whereas the (msent siat premises is at Ragnandgaon town. Hte is required to visit Rajnanrigaon? '< town, 3-4 times in a month and has no ptece to stay at Rsgnarad^ w ?< "^ In one part of the premises, his tawyer twother is residra.' -Wwfeasi i.>-''3.<;,-jB".s?:y- pteaded that he wUI construd a house for his own purpose and sSsotlw* his bnrther^i tegal professkOT. During the pendawy (rftheswt,theti|,, ^^•"•^^jBSAi;^'6^;^:^^"':-;^'^ y "c%. .< -3. plamtiff retired and the plaint was amended to plead th^ arfter#us< retirement he wants to sdUe and lead hte remaimng Ufe at '.•-••>l-i«;"-»-"t.' Rqnandgaon and shall construct a house ftwn the amount.of|>rovident »:, fund andgratuity whrehhe has recwred after i^irement. -,E » (4) The defCTdarts/appellants resisted the suit on the pteadii^s the* the need pnqected by the ptantiff is not bonafkteand thatthe plaintiffiis already occi^ying a part of the premises whch is sufficiert1wah»Ti,the suit Is vexatious and has been instituted to harass Nm aCTd'iiwth^ •a< •^^"" n:8'*::':..^" .^ii.';^ absence of a buikfing plan and availabiUty of fund taving it>een"state<| in the plaint, the bonfide need appesNrs to be artifteial. (5) The trial Cwirt as well as the first appdlate Court have fourei that the bonatkte requirement of the plaintiff has been fuUy establehed on the basisof the ptea<B(^s and evktence laid by the parties in the course of the trial. tt has been found that the irtaintifftas no other reasonabty suitaUe accommodati<m to satisfy his residential needs; therefore, the defendarts/appellanls deserves to be evreted.* TtwWat' Court in para 14 of the juc^ment has obser/ed that the plaintiff has failed to point out any accommodatiw belongii^ to the plaintiff whfch can t said to be an altemerth/e accommodation. The first appellate Court has ateo dealt wth this issire and found that the plainWdoes not have any other reasonably suitaMe altemative acc<»nnwdaUon. Moreover, brth the Courts have concurrently found that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff has retired and wants to con^ruet Ns' own house ert Rajnanc^aon. The ptea raised by the defendants that the plaint'rff has permanently settted at wtlage Gomanlpur has not been ^ !^:!^H^ found to be proved by the Courts below. r "'3A '•"&, '^^. ^i -^K, "••'^ as ftB-ssyt B Es (6) On peiusal of the recorelsand havmg considered the aiguments raised by the counsel for the ai^seUants, this Cwirt does rot find any inherent infNTnity or perversity in the jiK^ment and decree passed by the Courts below or the findir^s recoreled by the Courts below to hold that the need of the plaintiTf is bwaficte. tt fe setMed law thsrt the findings regarding bCTiafkte needis pure findingof fact whteh cannot be unsettted in the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless findK^ is per/erse. This Court has alresKly examined that the findir^s regaidii^ bonatkte requirement is not perverse. (7) The appdlant has argyed that the need of the br<Aher caraiot be sa'id to be the need of Vne plairtiff. 1 have cpi^dered the a^uments and upon perysal of the plaint andtheeyidence, it is qytte ap^arent that the need of the plainUfffor thepremises is the need of himself and nrt merely for his brother. It appears that the plaintiff wants to constryct his own house and since hte lawyer brother is practteTO at Rajnandgaon town, he wants to accomiw)date his brcAher who may;' occu^ one room to carry on his tegal profresron, hwreyer only because of this ft cannirt be sakl that the ertire need is of that <rf his brother. (8) This Court ctoes nq* find any error in the zyiMoach and the manner in whteh the evklence has been appreaated by the Ccftirts below. (9) There bang no substanltal qyestion pf taw ansing in this appeat for determination, the presCTit second appeal faite and is hereby •Y dismisswl. :a'-:^f... /yss- ^ s ^fS^S^^"' ^4 -// (W) LeamedcamseltottteaCT)eUantspraysthatthea|^eUarte>may be attowed some time to vacate the premises and to Ipok'foraany* premises fw Vnsw own resktence. (11) On consicteration, it fe directed tha* the a^ieUants shaB ftand over the vacart poss^ston ofsuit premis^ on or befoTe^O^Jwiig, 3^ 2010, fatUng which the pteuntiff/responctent ^iallbe entWedto'ex^utyljg. thedecree. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge a