C4 §Jxoéq/ > ‘ ni‘ Im'rHE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH A'r BILASPUR [c G 1 i A No 95M [2004 (s B) X i . APPELLANT DEFENDANT / Chandra Dnver S/o Keturam Urama, Aged about 50 years, Occupatlon— Drlver R/o Rallway Banglapara, Ralgarh Tahs11 85 D1stt Ra1garh (C G ) VERSUS Surendra Pratap Shah S/ o Pramod #(Shah Occupatlon— Busmess, R/o Banglapara, Ralgarh Tahs11 8L D1stt Ralgarh (C G ) ECTION 100 (CIVIL PROCEDURE L UNDER S _ WA CODE " Ry” ? u . . ECOND APPEA RbsrONDENT pLAINTIFF § :- xmc-va tgwg- oos ‘ shri Vinit Pandey fat me ap Heard 6n admission; appeal appellantidehndant against the ' passed by second Additional judgment and decree of ewctlon passad by IV CM! Judge Class ll Raigarh In CM! Suit No 33-N2002 med by Rsspondent I Plaintiff u; 4 second This w“ 2Q ‘ 1&1 Tf—raw “iéw lant'. ‘hasr baen' prafen'ed by me meat and decree damd 25-02-2004: id Judge. Raigarh conMning the The plaintiffmad the m4 suit on {he groundthat he was me awnetofthesuitlandwhichwasg encn monmiyrentdRsJw-tche appenantv As the appellant did notice and 18.05.1994 was se' post mentioning mat if me p the tenncy would be terminated nd me damageg Q Rs. 51- per day would be made leviable. sinoe the appellant/de above legal notice, suit f0: e rent and damages was med. ll wa pleaded that due plalrmff required lhe need and that exoept me suit house the plaintiff had no other allemativ accommwallon to accommodate his large family and lhet the suit acc mmodation had become dilapidated ‘? tpay rent «om 01—01-1994, a regal to‘ the appellant ’through wgislered of rent ls not‘mado by me appellmt. trdid‘not pay the lent despite lhe e and recovety of Rs. SSW-’towards' suit accommodation for bone tide .3a «1 Jar—1s em fez/mo a f v' ' n which requires maintenance and repairs which could norbe carriad our without getting the same vacaiai Defendant denied the tenanay; it was pleaded on lbehalf af the defendammat he dees not-recognke‘ me ‘* ‘ plaintiff; Hmver, issu‘anee‘ of quit netioe was accephd by he defendant It was funher piea bythe defendantmatbypmfnssion he»- was driver and was rasidmg i the House No 229 aid Ward No 29 - New Ward No 13 which wa ned by his dim teiated metemai grand mothei sonai Bel, b g monihlyrent of Rs. 80/-. basis ef pleadings of the respective thesulthoidingmatmesmtheusei- i i GRPRJ—FS/350wIZ/‘ZOOO 50,000 d . s w y . n = XI-HC» *78 mwrém, m I ., fwwgz m7 w gfi2AH/0v i mtéw Q3¥H£fa m4 “Wm (cgfwqa ) Ewaaq wait?! £I Axta imam é‘s @Wi aWcE¥€ bearing house No. 229, Wald No. 13, by paying monthly rent: af Rs. 60/- and accordingly the suit was deer with cost. Bath the Couns ‘below on- basis of documem submmed by “the plaintifr being the ragistar sale deed 'daaad 10-04-1974 Vida. Ex P-5 axeeuted by Parasu m Shah in pmsenoe of ma plaintifi‘ Surendra Ptatap shah haid mat a suit ptopeay was purchased by he v 5 plamhff and that the House Tax. ater Tex etc. of the said heuee were? 'paid by the plaintiif vide Ex.P—6; he basis of the statement; of sonai Bai Who has been examined as D.W.2 both the Gems bebw have arrived at the conclusion that the propetties rdened to by the plaintiff and defendant are one and the same and no difference is averted by the defendant inv s written statement because the boundaries of bod: the propert .ere described to be the same and Sonai Bai admitted that the pr rty which she claimed to be her property was got registered by P rasu Ram Shah inher name. Furdter case of the plaintiff is mat the house was purchased by him from Parasu Ram Shah. Contention the defendant has also been denied by his own witness sonai Bat has hated that the defendant did not- pay rent to her She has further dmlhed that a suit for ejectment and . r payment of rent has been dee against her in favour of me plaintiff ' and that Surendra Pratap sha o obtain Rs; 591-, 60l- and at times Rs. 1001- and 3001-. However. has stated dratthe abwe payrmnt- e “f k u i i s h t s.r..4/W W wéwm (WW) Wwm .._L,‘* @mo wwwm I; wmm 'WWWI§%%WR %5aima‘ném \t was not towalds rent but it was Rewards the loan. Thus considering the documents produced by the plalndff the oncurrent nnding M he defendant :. in which he was residing. beiongedte thaMhe nodee sewed bytheplaintiff for payment of baiance of r nt which was not replied to by :he defendanthbam the Courts bel and despite noh'ce sent by th defence of the defendant wa Court that the house in queai as he had no omer altem been held to be not proved by the ground of bone tide requir the ground that the suit hous not be repaired without be disproved and accordingly the ground of non-payment of rent. statement of Sonai Bai and the Courts below have recorded failed to prove that the prope Sana! Bai and furiher consids Leamed counsel for the- both the cours below basically under order 41 Rule 27 of appellate stage for adducing decided and by this applinati A; held that tenant was die defendmt plaintiff for non-payment of rent die ' off; HoWever, the finding of me mat was bonafidely required by the'plalndff“ accommodation in Raigarh Town. has appellate Gourt and decree passed one has been set aside and decree err ‘ ' in anapidatedveondttion which could ’vaoamd has also been held to be- ppellate court decreed the suit on me appellant has assailed he findings of the ground that the application med. CPO wastiled bythe piainh‘fiatthem evidenoe which has notbeen he had prayed for taking excerpts of- \5’ GRPRJ—VFSBSOw] Z/QOOOVSODOU, c s e e i a " r i e ‘ i aw my (Wm WWW ’75: 3211mm mmnwm ‘QLaaifcWW ‘u electoral roll prapared in the- Sonai Bai and bar husband tespecWely. The findingsof ear 1975 on record. in which name of ' rayan tind piaoe at Si. No. 89 and 79‘ both the Courts below’have also been ' assailed on the ground lhat su' was ineliluledby a person who has no- power of attorney executed by the plaintiff and aubshntiai question of lawhasbeenproposadasu 'Whgther without any wer of attorney, the P.W.1‘ has the authoritytoconductthe :‘ it?” l have heard counsel for ' 30m the Cams below e appenant: recorded a concurrent iindlng hart: r vide document of Ex.P.1, Pa su Ram — P.W.1 was appointed ass 'special pcwerol attorney by r-plaindl'f who wasrcemmnt to depese on his behall. pellant has howouer not sham any: ord from appointinganyepecial power: of attorney to prosecute a civil Suit on his behalf for eviction and asr no substantial question of law ie' n Leamod oounso! fat th provision which prohibits Ihe l such according to ieamed o invoived in this case; Finding of both the ooum and tenant between the plai availabie on record and GRFRJ—‘FSBSO—vlZ/ZUQO 50,000. 319 ~ QHN.27’/may..or.m290 : ow is that the relahonship of-landlord' v and defendant is haaad on document analysis of evidence led by both me n >: e I a r o , n‘ o z ‘w‘ u l p w ' ; @ 7/ \7 x@EEIOQ 4 3&3? W (1mm mamm w é v WW§WW €6sif'auanw 377§ ' GRPRJAFS/35O-—l 2/2000A50,000. / parties and that the same concurrent mdlng of the faet that can not be assailad in the Seaond peal. smmem of D.W.2 ai Bai who-has bean examined by :he defendant himself has admin thatpvopeny which she claimed of her ‘ awn is in feet recorded in v name’of Pamsu Ram shah who has‘ subsequemlyrsold the same .the piesent'piaim'ff and Meme the r contention of the defendant the he wastenantraf semi ’Bai is dismeved :by his awn witness sonai Bai has statsd that defendant never paid r anyrenttoher. Onthece tysheedmittedmatdecmeofeviwon was passed against her. In the afotesaid circum nces I am at the view that he judgment and decree of the uteLCourt ich was subsequendy eontirmed by the First Appeliate Court is based o elaborate and objective anaiysis cf the evidence avaitabie on reccrd the timing ttwt the defendant did net pay rent to the plaintiit even aft 'rservice of notice and as such mesuit was decreed on the ground ned in section 12 (1) (a) of the - Chhattisgarh Accommodation nhcl Act on account a: default in payment of rent, does not c it for any interference; More so, no subshntial quesu'on of Iaw is i votved in the appeal and as such the appeal being devoid or mam shade to be denies“. ft is accordingty dismissed. Consequently MCP No. 6 4/2004 stands dispowd of. ' ¢’r ‘ solsRAWm D hége a a o