y:^^, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinaie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Diiip Rapsaheb Deshmukh, J. Second Appeal No.349 of 2007 ^^B^Kf' A. Appellant/ Defendant Bhagwandas, S/o Purushottam Gupta, Age 53 years, Caste Kesharwani, Resident of Viilage Pendra, Tahsil Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.) versus Respondent/ Pjajntiff Smt. Akanksha Singh, W/o Abhishek Kumar Singh, Age 23 years, Caste Kshatriya, Presentiy residing at Village Pendra, Tahsil Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order 42 RuSes 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure Present : Shri Vijay Kumar EVSishra, counsel for the appeilant. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 27 August, 2007) Heard on admission. (2) The appellant/defendant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 05-07-2007 passed in Civil Appeal No.29-A/2004 bythe Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Pendra Road, whereby the judgment and decree dated 30-09-2004 passed in Civil Suit No.93- A/2002 by the Civii Judge Class-1, Pendra Road, whereby the suit was dismissed, was affirmed. - /" @ (3) Shri Vijay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appeliant did not dispute that the suit accommodation was let out to him by Dhanmat Kunwar, the grand mother ofthe respondent/plaintiff. It was also urged that in this appeal, the appellant is not challenging the receipt of a valid notice of ternnination oftenancy. (4) The sole point urged by learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent/plaintiff has failed to prove that she was the owner of the suit accommodation. No other ground was urged. (5) Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, 1 have perused the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 1 am of the considered opinion that the trial Court has, upon proper appreciation of evidence, ora! as also documentary, recorded a finding that the respondent/plaintiff is the owner of the suit accommodation and, therefore, the notice issued by her validly terminated the tenancy and the same was rightiy affirmed by the lower appellate Court. In this view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises for determination of this appeal. (6) Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the motion stage. Consequently, I.A.No.1, an application for grant of stay stands disposed of. r ! Sd/- 1 Dilip Raosaheb Deshmokh Judge Gopai