{ ‘ CV é 3 é: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, (1G. SECOND APPEAL No. 5'i £0114 (Secand appeal Under section 1M of Civil Procedure Code) / @EFENDANT ESPONDENT § : Akheel Das, Sfo Nishikant Dis, fL I’ Rio D.N.K. Co1ony, Kondagaon, Dim. Bastar (C.G.) Q”; , I ‘ SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION ID!) OF CIVIL PROCEDURE I' ‘_ ’ CODE k W ‘”‘ *wjk‘mgwj r § V . W 1 'mgle Bench AWELLANT jPLAINTIFIf . £ : (/ Sm. Mam Prabha Sen, aged about. 64 yams, Rio D‘NK. Colony, Kondagam i Disn. Bastar (CG). ’ I ,4. 7 «Jinfww ~ mus . Qs‘ a ”U. V ‘ ';9t§ HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPBR Sinqie Eencm fiun’ble Shii Jusiica Prashant Kumar Mishra Secend Aypea! N0. $? af 2094 Smt. Mam Prabha Sen Varsus Aktfeel Qa5 . JU3GM£NT Posi €mls—Q4—2Q‘! a. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge J ‘ { {34—29%} M H%GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR % $mgle Bench Hon’ble 5hr; Justice Prashant Kumar Mtshra ‘ Secend &ggea! Haw! 2994 APPELLANT Smt. Mam Pgabha Sen Versus RESPGNDENT Akheel 3as a \- Shn Vishnu Keshta counsel m the appelkant. Snn Rakesh Anihony, counsei for the respondeni SECOND &PPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF T3E EODE 9F ”WL PROCEDURE JUDGMENT i ‘é - 942M§} The instant second appea! under Sectécm 1% 9f me CE}; has hear: preferred by the ptaintifflappeliaat whose sait rm evictien, arrears ryf rent and mesne mom wa$ auoweé m! the tria! Carri, howgxer an appea! by the defendant, the first appeliate Court whhe alkewéhg ihe appeaL has set—aséde the judgment and desree passed by the ma! Ceurt and has dismissee me suit preferred by ihe piaintih/eppeikant. r {2} Facts of the case, in short, is that :he ptaihtiff preferred the instant suit for eviction, arrears of reht and mesne prefrt against iha defender? Akheer Des ah the pleadrnge enter aha that rhe defendant re her *eharrt h the surt tend and house tor e menthty rent 9f Rs.3GO/- being in poseeseten thereef frem 1505—t9&8. Accerding tothe ptaintrff he rent hate was executed between the partiee because ef amicabte retattan between them, and the defendant used to make payment at rent. HeWever, tram 1 May 2GGG to t0“ Auguetésm the eefemtant did net pay the rent ‘t‘he Drarntrtr needs the nrernreee henetrdelv fer her ewe nen—reetdenhet need 3’ ¢é and tha? in spite af sending &ega! notise dated 22—94—2000 asking tha defendfant to make payment af armms af s'ent and hanécver vaCant posséssion a? the suit acmmmodatiaa, me defendant fai§ed ta semgiy wim %he notéce Compeuing the piaintifE ta fue the pie$ent wit an W“ AEugust, 20m, {3) Th? defendam, in his Writtan statement state§ that the pia‘mtiff is ‘w neithet the ewner rear the tandlord of the Suit grem‘sses, and that the defenaanti is net hgr teaant. Assert-ting to the defendant he ts tn passesston at the pteperty since 1985 end he is .reeid‘mg therein by constructing the hcuee and is earrying en his bueéneee ef warming e ftew mm {Aeta Chakk‘e). tt was etated in the additkmet statement by the defendant that even if the ptaintift ie inund te he the ewner ef the eremisee, since the defendant ie in hoetiie peeeeeeien tn the knewiedge ef the piaintiff for more than 12 yeare, he has pertecied hie tine by eevetse paeeessien. \nA (4) The trial Conn by its iudgment anci decree dated i8—9?—2902 decreed the suit after helding that the piaintift is the ewner er heuee bearing No. it)? at D‘NK. Ceiony, Kendegaen situated at Khaere Nos. 626:39, 626M), 626/57 and $9ai4 wherein ehe eatendaet is e tenant en a menthiy rent of Re‘3e0i- and that the piaintitf needs the premises ac r ‘ satisfy her own bone tide neee''m start her awn hueineee. The triai Seurt i else ¥ound that though the eefendant is in eneeeeeien ef the premises fer ‘ i i \ We than i2 years hut he has net perieceeti his title by edveree i ‘z‘ peeseseicn. J r—y, [Lq (5) ‘ The defendant preferred the appea! undek' Section Q6 9% §.P.C. and the emanate Court by the impugned iudgment and eiecree, has auawed the appea‘ and has set—as‘de the gudgment and eesree passed W *be iréa! Caur€ The first appel¥a¥e Ceurt thus dxemvsaed *he amt after ha‘dmg “1a: me piaintm has failed ta prove the rekationemp 9f §audlord are tenant and the defendant being in pesse$sEan a? mare than 12 years, has peifecéeé his title‘hy adve€se poesession‘ (6) This Cum! byorder dated 31-31% admmed ihe instant gecon appeal by formulating me following substantial queskions a? %aw :— “(1} Whether the {ewer apyeaate semi erred in Jaw in holding the? £he reiafionship ef gandkm! and £enan! was net establigé’zed in this ease ? {2) Whether fhe cerrect {est in ;e!atiea m yerfeafim? 9f $19 by way af adverse passessr’un has net geen apglied ,‘ay :‘he mwer appe!!a£e sour: and éhe iawe? ap§§£!ate wart erred in !aw ,in heming mat the defeRdanf m3 gaffegfed title by way of adveme poesession ? Whether the hawer appellate gem? further erred in §aw 3h reverer'ng the wag reasened judgment 22nd degree pssed by the maf Gem based m ihe greund ef $ecfree 12(1)(e} and 12mm 3f :he MR (6.$‘} Accemmadatien CentraiAct, ?9&? ?" {7) his Court sheik mw answer the questien e€ iaw fer deciding the preset appeal. The first eueetlen is a5 to whether the mletlonshie ef lencllcl and tenant has been preved or net ’9 Admittedly *l‘eie e 5. rent hate m leneney greement between the partles herefere the questten ls to be eee en the beets et we! ewdenee am lecerrl end as *e whether he fng ecerded by the fxtst eppeltate Ceett eulfete new en ermt ef law. The at court framed the eeue tte ‘l teeardlnq the tetatlettelvn m lLe ;5. ms a T n 5‘ ‘cr l a l l ‘l dstd g dm r t th «L!— §andi§rd and tenant. The triah Ccurt ap‘med that the defendant’E, p%ea a? ' ' deftyiiwjg the maintiff’s ovmership and at the same time ckaimirig title by adver$e possesséon is SeEf conUadictory aad seEf destmctive. %t has been discu$5ed that if the defendant ctaims title by adverse mssewen ét weutd meant that he i5 accepttng the cwnetship of the ptaintift en the seit premieee. After ttiscuesing the statement at witneeeee the trie! aeurt teund titat in View ef the deéumentary evidence infntm 9f Ex. Wt the regard of rights, ExPf2 the Khaera Penehshata, EXPI5 the Rtn Puetike, Ex. P/6 the tease granted to the ptatnt‘nft ete. it week} appeet that the tease of the tend te granted in the year t972 and that the etaihtitf ee g set: es her witness PAN—2 Shetrugheh Singh has stated that the ptaihtiff ée the owner ef the property. P.W.-2 has else stated that the heuee hes heen eonstructed by the plaintiff. On the contrary the defendant has net submitted any documentaty/evidehce te disprove the feet that the piaihttff ie not owner of the preperty. L wee {E} ‘t‘he triai Ccurt, white deciding the ieeue Nee. 2 8: 3 hae eteberetety discueeed the evidence and has {sued that the ptatntttt’e plea that he has cenetructed the heuse is a false ptea‘ On the haste of evidenee ef RWJ2 Shatrughan Singh and P.WJ3 Atay Kumar Ghost: the trtat Seert cehclucted that the plaintiff has proved the tetatioreehip 0f tanelerd amt tEnat’tt. (9} The tihdinge recorded by the triat Ceutt with regard te teletiehehtp l 9f landlore and tenaht has heee disturbed by the first appellate {mutt we appellate Court appears to have been trhpreeeed by the tact that the lptaintiff has not titedarty doeument to pteve that ehe has taken ‘ penn§§s§on :0 construct the heuse and a‘m that them i5 an. tenancy agreement or rent receipt én reiatien ta the ienantad pmmises. On exami$aticn ef :he evidence avaéiable cu {esard it wnmd appear mat ExPia} {C} which is a copy of the lease granted to me plaintiff it §ind$ mentiahed that a shep an plot Maw area 9m dismii¥ is situated. 't‘ha ptaint‘eff’s assertion about thg defendant hetng he: tenant rematm unshae‘téd in her crass examinatéun and that her witnse3 RWJ2 Shatrughan Singh and 3 Ajay Kumar Ghost: hae samtant!“ supported pt ¢ase that the defendant 3 h teaan Qantrary te hra DW D W J9 n th t it Akheet Das and Goutang Vyapa have statett at the house as been constructed by defendant Akheet ae. tntereetingty the appettete Court has required the plaintiff te nave obtained eermieeien te {aiee the costructien but white accepting the defenant’s etea tat he has raised the conettuetion at the etmp the same tequiteent ei’ law ei' the yatstick hae not been apptied. The findirzg ernyee at by the titet eppeitate Com regarg the tetans at n ! and tenant eter the perttee appears te be eeweree and thus the first eppetiate Seam hee erred in heiding that the plaintiff has taited te establish the teletienehip e? tandlerd and teant. n (19) The second substantial question 0t taw termutated y his Court ie as foliost- w (} Whether the canect tes retan te peresn ef We t way ef adverse passn has net reen apo’ b e l 'or a re wer yed m dm tue ttt b” "~ ~\ . 2 t in tm ftie i}; lg essle t pte ; th we ppetiate m? and the !o appellate seer? e few hwg that the defendant nee perfected te way of adveree gessesn ? tt ss PW§ u amttffs 1: e? t h Q " n d h m d din teehtp ad em dwe b t i sre The iaw regarding the degree 9f prom, e nature of pieading and ‘ m vidnce required by a wrsen t9 preve perfem‘eor: 9f title by adver$e ee posession has been sewed by the $upreme Sour; in the cages 5f $ Anakili Vs.Vedanayagam, NR 2008 SC 34$ and Dharmarajan & d Or Vs. Valtiamma! & Qrs” NR 2008 SC 350. s {11) When the pleading anld evidence avaéhable in Qha piegenk sase és exam§héd an éhe teuchstone cf the {equkemeni 3f %aw a euki appear ghat ihe d&fendant ha$ made a baki statemgnt m the writen statemeni: that ince he is k2 mseeesien 3f the heuee €m‘ mere ihan 12 years $9 the knoweege a? the pieint§f€ and h‘is pcsses'sicn has been hastile, he %' kw; perfected me titie by adverse pesseseien, hewevee there §s abseiuteiy rm pre as ta the peém 9f Rimitatien, the open and hosrile aseeréien by ihe de€endant tha he is the ovmer ef the preperty wh'rch ie kmwn ta the enire area. Moreever, as abserved by rhe trier Cok. §he defement r gr haing denied the plainti§¥’e nership, warm be eermittee $0 raise e y cw pie e? perfeet'ton ef title by adverse peeeeee‘ren. The moment, $he defendant een‘ree elainréffs awnere‘rp en the prepertyl the entire edifiee of hie ptee with reepeet i3 perfeetien ef iitie by adverse eeeseesien ieiis i0 the ground. The weeding and evidenee in this regard, ie nowhee near ihe requiremeni ef iaw. The fire! appeiiate Ceurt nae very eureeriiy, in eniy one paragraph i.e. in pare 1e ef the iudgrnent, in eniy iew iinee, he's eenciuded tha the defendh has eeriecied rle by ereeeriptien. mere is t er fi ne diseuesien abeui the eieadinge and evidenee with {egerd £0 ereve e? \ t adveree peeeeseien The finding is net eriiy peweree but has been arrie at by nen—ceneidereiien ef the pieedinge and eeidenee ied by the vd partiee end the ieg’ai requirement in reepeei te ereei 0f edireree i i i i i ‘r w s a r e h r iL x i i i . -7_ possgssion. The iower appe‘iate Ceurt haa thu'a mt applied me 3erréct test ip relation tr: perfedmn of {me by adverse passeasion and hag > therekwi erred in iaw in hoiding that the defemant has perfected ms £i’de by way of adverse passeseiea. The sewed queetian er raw is thus answered in ¥avour ef the appeilant. {12) The third question of raw framed by ihis Cum is re ihe felfewing effect :— {3} Whether {he !ower appeilate semi further erred in Law in reversing the weir reasoned judgment and decree passed by the trier wart eased 3n me grease! ef‘Sectitm 12{?)(a) and 12mm of the MP. {6.6.} Accammedatien 60mm! Aer, 1961 ?" - The trier Ceurt decreed the suit an the greund ef eareeaymenr ef rent under Seetion 12(1Xa) and en the greund 9f non-residentia! bene tide need under Seerion 12mm ef the Chhatriegarh l‘ibcemmedetien Qeetro! Am, 4£9$1 (fer shot! ‘the Act, 1%1 ). The phintiff aee pieadee end praverr her non-residentiar need by making a piea m the main? and thereafter‘stating in para 2 of her etaiemeni that ehe needs ihe eremiees' for epening her own shop. She has arse stated ghet éhe eefendarrr has faiied te make payment 0f rent even after aceeptrng aha %ega! eetiee. '{he Reece dated 12—64—2000 was reeeived ‘hy ihe defendant en 25434—2Q9Qn The suit wee preferred en 1}!)8—26m} re. after expiry er iwe menthe grew. q the date ei serviee ef neiiee. The defendant having eeeerted ere ewe iitie ’ i en the euii premieee and thus the finding ie ihie effect recereeri by ahe iriai Couri that the piainiiif has preved her eaee ef evieiien under Seetien i i 12 me) and {f} 0i the Aei, 19m appears re he weii intruded. 'i'he firsi 1 eppeiieie ’Ceuri has net deaii with the ieeue and nae thus imeiiediy _%“ confirmed ‘Ehe fiadings rammed by ihe mak (mart. Same me Ekst appeikxte Ceur: me feund tha! Qhem i5 m mhatianshm 9f iandmm and kenant and me defendani ha$ perfected his t‘tile by adverse passsesgign, é: appe‘ays, the mst appe£§ate 6mm di€¥ mt chase $0 deat with me §3$:§% 3f bena we need cf rim—payment a? {em €0§ deais‘mn, hewe‘vier 3n $xamining the evidence this 6mm §s satisfked Ehat the p§aintiffs assmtian of hena “tide need has mt wen sontmve:ted by £he defendant and that V the defendant hevmg mt tendered er paid aha eifears ef gent, ihe eecree an hath me grcund‘ Le. under Seetien 1.2(1 }(a) and 12$ }(§) eheuie have been granted by the fest appeiiate Ceari. ’i‘he med eueetiee ef iaw is eise enewered in feveu: ef me appeiiam eee agaieet the deferment ! reependent. {4.3) On the easis ef eeewer £e eii £he.quee£iene ef iew in €ev0er ef the appeiient, the instant appeai is aiiowedu like iuegment ane eecree peseed by the firet appeiiate Seer! meet—aside and the iudgment end deciee paeeed by ihe iriei Court ie restereci. {‘i 4) The reepondeni shaii handever eeearit peseeeeie‘ri and pay arrears ei rent as eieo the eerreni rent during eendeney 9t eiiit anti eppeaie. {i 5) The {tefendant ehaii aiee bear the eeet at the epeeiient threegheet. {1 6)‘ A decree be drawn 94p eeeordingiy. /, ‘ Sdl— /, Mishl‘a Judge Prash‘am K“‘“a_r i“W\kA