% HIGHeOURTOFCI-fHATTISOARMATBILASPUR SingleBench : 1-fOn'bleShri DilioRaosaheb Deshmukh. J. ARpellants/ Plaintiffs/ Landlords ResbOndent/ DefendanU Tenant FirstADDeal N0.48 bf 2007 1. 2. 3. versus Vinod^Kumar Dikshit, aged abQUt 36 years, S/o^ Late Shri Lal Prasad Dikshit • Rajkymar Dikstlit, aged about 30 years, S/o l-ate .Shri Lal Prasad Dikshit Djnesh Kumar @ Ratiram Dikshit, S/o LateShri LalPrasadDikshit All residents of Maudahapara, Raipur(C.G.) Mohd. Saleem @?Abdul Sale6m, S/o Hafiz Gaffur, Near Shiv Mandir, IVIauclahapara, Raipur (C.G.): .,,•;, ,; ,. ^ -^ FirstApDeal uhderSection S&ofth&CodeOfCivil Proeedure, •1908 Preserit : Appgllants byShFiiSgEuay S. Agravvalvlearried counset. RespdndentbyShriB.L.Dembra;leamfedcounsel. %'. f JUDGMENT fDeliveredonthis't7thciavof6ct6ber,2007) Heardfinally. , : . , (2) The appellants/plaintiffe are aggrieved bythejudgmentanddecree dated 16-03-2007 passedbyVIUhAdditionalDistrictJudge.RaipuriniGiyi] Suit No.l-A/1995, whereby the sujt for eyiction pf the^ resp6ndent/defendant/tenantongroundsunderclauses(a),(c),(d);andj(f) ofsub-section (1) ofiSediQn 12x)fthe Maai^a^radeshACGO^ ^ ControlAGt, 1961 (hencef6Fth'the%Gt, 1961') wastdisiTii^d.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^:^^^1 (3) It js not disputedrthat pnor to thie jmpugned juclgmenfcajtcl decree, thetrialCourthad^on 06-08-1988, ai^jsseathesuit^|^ytby^^ .. 'iA^." ::'.':.'"^^s§i^^"^'L :-i:^:Mk-'^^^Sr'S^i^ ^i appellantS/plaintiffs. ^^ appellSnts/^ Videjudgmentclated26-09-20Q6passedinFirsfAppealNo.436/1998,this Court remandedthernattertothetrialGciurt'wittiCertainclirectidns.After sueh remand, the trial'OouFt Hasag&iri clismissetl the suit on the groun^^^ that the appellants/plainfiffs tiay^^ailetf" tp gstgfcilish the relatipnship of landlord and tenant. between the appellahtg/plaintiffs and the respondenVaefendant over the suit plot No.7, 9 and 11, Situated over Khasra No.229/1 and 229/4, total area 18,000 Sq.Ft., at Krishha Kumar Rpad, Maudahapara, Raipur. (4) Shn SanjayS.Agrawal, |earh^e6unselfbrtheaRpellantg/p^ has assajled tHe impugned judgment and deeree pBsse3;by the leamed Vllth Addjtional DistriGt Jy^ge, f^ipur on^ ©ou M^iripar^Fapift2^relied?pn^ftemdoc 24, EX.P-1.4/C and Ex;P-23, showing that e respcfrident/defehdant had^ taken the suit plot on rent frorriohe Lal Prasad ©ikshit,father o'rappellants thefjnding reeordecf bythe tnai©oBFtthatttTe;resporKfent/defendantisnQt the tenant of the appellants/plaintiffS is peroerse. RefeFenre v^ also made to paragraph 34 efthe^rnpugnedjuclgrnent.where has also held thatthe appellante/plaintiffs required thesuit plot feorta ffde fbr non-residential purpose. It was urged that the impugned judgment and decree is perverse inasmyGh as there was sufRcient material pn record to :- ( '•' :. :;; •: - .. ':' . ,': ,•:' '•i '.1. prove that relatiQnship oflandlord aHd tenant existed betweenthe partjgs and the appellants/plaintiffs requir^ ^he Suit plot ibona fl^ resiclentialpurpose. 1 J .. • • .' : . • •.•••.';.•• .•.••••• .'•.•'•'.•'';'.•'•••; (5) On the pther harid, Shri fB.l-.Dembra, tearned counsel for the respondent/defenclarityjd n6tORpose;th6prayeir ^responderWdeferiyant is;not in;pc»s^ion^6^^^ I'aplNf 1!IN^^^ fS!;?ii§t'Sis?t'ii®{^'KSSSiSSSSfSSS, SSi Q causeanyhindrance inthe processoftaking pSSSessiohofthgsuitplofby the appellants/plaintiffs through the processof Gourt. (6) Nootherground orSubmjSsidnwa&urggd ormade. (7) Having heard the rival contentions^ 1 have perused the impugned judgment as also the documentary eviclence led by the appellants/plaintiffs. It is clear that the trial Court has recordeda finding in favour ofthe appellants/plaintiffs that they require ftona ffcfe the suit plot for non-residential purpose, which is a ground for evietion of the respondent/defendant available to the appellants/plaintiffs under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act, 1961. As tegards the finding reGorded by the learned trial Court in paragraph 27, 1 am ofthe considered opinion that in view of the documentary evidence Ex.P-24, Ex.P-14/C and Ex.P-23|ed by the appellants/plaintiffs as also the observations recorded by the learned trial Judge in paragraphs 27 and 33, the finding that the appellants/plaintiffs have failed to prove that relatipnship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, is perverse. In view ofthe above, the impugned judgment and deGreeisliable to be set aside, (8) Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree is set aside. The suit for evietion pf the respondent/defendant is decreed in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act, 1961. 1 .! : : : ' ' In the facts and circumstances ofthe case, thereshall be no order as to costs. '•• Sd/- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Gopal