i ^ ^ ^ecic^b (T'? IN THE HIGH COURT QP JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Second Appeal No. ^ I /2011 Appellant : Defendant ^^^ ,,,^^N...-^ ^^^^•- ~^^-^\ %^:.^^l\ o^-""^SJ\r Shri Kharanand Mishra S/o Shri Bhutoo Mishra, aged about 52 years R/o A-7, Bambeshwari Colony, Sant Kabirdas Ward No.3, Gudhiyari Raipur, Tahsil & District Ralpur (C.G.) VERSUS Respondent Plaintiff P. Chandra Shekhar Rao S/o Late N. Ishwar Rao, aged about 43 years, R/o M.B.-3, Mansa Chamber, Om Complex, Fafadih, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIV!L PROCEDURE 1908 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: B1LASPUR S.A.No.81 of 2011 APPELLANT: DEFENDANT Shri Kharanand Mishra Versus RESPONDENT: PLAINTIFF P. Chandra ShekharRao POST FOR JUDGMENT ON^JUNE, 201 1 Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR A APPELLANT: DEFENDANT RESPONDENT: PLAINTIFF S.A.No.81 of 2011 Shri Kharanand Mishra Versus P. Chandra Shekhar Rao Present: Shri Y.C. Sharma, counsel for the appellant. Shri B.P. Sharma, counsel for the respondent. JUDGMENT (Delivered on _X^kJune, 2011 ) Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. 1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') has been preferred by the tenant/defendant against whom the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court has granted a decree for eviction and arrears of rent. 2. The plaintiff preferred a suit for the defendant's eviction and arrears of rent with respect to the House No.A-7 situated at Bamleshwari Colony, Sant Kabirdas Ward No.3, Gudiyari, Raipur on the pleadings, inter alia, that the defendant is his tenant from 15-2-2005 at monthly rent of Rs.2,000/-, however, the defendant has stopped paying rent from January, 2006 and has filed a frivolous suit against him for declaration and permanent injunctioh on the ground that he is in possession ofthe accommodation by virtue of agreement to sell executed between the parties. The plaintiff also pleaded that he requires the accommodation for his own residence and for his family members for which he has rio other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation in the city of Raipur. Thus, a decree was prayed on the groundscovered under -, Section 12 (1)(a), (c) and (e) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The defendant denied relationship of landlord and r -^ \Y ,.-^ ^: .;?y •'•;; ^ :;i^'^^.^.. '? ;;^f^^^ -^ ^^ ^mi, j tenant and stated that he has not taken accommodation on rent from the plaintiff and in fact, an agreement to sell was executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant on 15-3-2004 and delivered possession of the suit house to him. 3. The trial Court partly decreed the suit and while directing eviction ofthe defendant, arrear of rent was confined to the rent of 9 months. 4. The plaintiff as well as the defendant preferred separate first appeals before the Court below. The First Appellate Court, by impugned judgment and decree, has allowed first appeal of the plaintiff and has granted arrears of rent from 9-10-2006 in addition to the arrears of 9 months amounting to Rs.18,000/- granted by the triat Court. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the present appellanVdefendant. Thus, there is concurrent finding against the present appellant insofar as his eviction is concerned. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the finding recorded by the Courts below regarding retationship of landtord and tenant is perverse. 6. This Court has perused the record and has gone through the evidence adduced by the parties as well as pleadings. 7. Issue No.4 framed by the triat Court was with respect to relationship of landlord and tenant. The trial Court has found this issue to be proved in favour of the plaintiff and the said finding has been affirmed by the First Appellate Court. Though discussion made by the trial Court is not elaborate, however, the Appellate Court has dealt with this issue in detail keeping in view the defence of the appellant/defendant that he is in possession of the suit accommodation on the strength of agreement to sell. The Courts below have considered that so called agreement to sell has not been produced by the appetlant before the triat Court. Further, in paras-12 to 15 of the appellate judgment, the Appellate Court has considered the statement of the plaintiff as well as plaintiff's 'V^witness PW-2 Mohan Ante. -^: i,, . ' y ./ -1 8. It was the case of the appellant that he is not liable to pay any rent to the plaintiff because he is not a tenant. Therefore, when his plea of being in possession of the accommodation on the strength of agreement to sell was found to be untrustworthy, the trial Court on thv. strength of statements made by the plaintiff and his witnesses has found the relationship of landlord and tenant to be existing between the parties and has also directed for payment of arrears of rent. 9. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that the defendant is liabte to pay arrears of rent and he is tiable to be evicted from the suit premises. 10. In the result, there is no illegality or perversity in the concurrent findjng recorded by the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal, which fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Barve » t