HEGH COSRT OF CHHATT£$GARH : BILASPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 82 OF 2mm Basant Prasgd ~ ,3; 3ei§antl Pia‘im'iffs r Versus Shyama Bai 8: Othes's ./\ \\ Resgondentsi \ Daiiendants {SECOM Appea! undef Sectssn 10C} of the Sade 0f CM: Prscewre, $03) ‘ Singie Bench : Hon‘bEe Shri Prashant Kumar Mishi’a, J. g a ’ §3¥eserxt :— . Shri Prashant g‘aiswah Sr. Advocate wéth Shfi Ajay Mi$hra, $ 1 Advecate §sr the appmmm. } L SmhR‘Kn Tiwari anal Shri Prakash Tiwari, Advocates for ‘ the respondenta QRBER ORAL} {Passed on this 2?‘ giay sf January, 201G) “L: Head Reamed counsei for {he a'ppeiiant on the quesiion cf adm§ss§on. 2.3 The ampeHant herem is the u5successfui piaintiff in bath the Courts below who have dismissed his suit far dealaration that he £ % I k ’l is the temnt af defendantsl§andiord ’ in ’ the premiSes in quastiotj V » and is ent§t§ed to a decree for permanent iniunctisn directing the ‘ defendanis' to rece‘nstruct the premises and upen fa§lure te‘permit the pSeintiff to reconstruct the house and to restrain the defendants from alienating the property to any other persons. The appetiant has also prayed for damages at the rate of Rs.30!— per ‘ .day from ?-5—1 995 tit! possession is handed over to him‘. According to the otaTntiff he was the tenant of the defendants 3n, the suit oremises asisotescribedtn the map attached with the ptaint on a monthiy rent of Rs.15f-, which was tater on increased to } Rs.3i)l~. He had taken the prem§$es on rent fwm 5am 3m Dwaz'5ka Prasad ShukSa and afte: his death the rent was paid to Shri Chandra Prakash Shukla. The present defendants are the ' iega! heirs of Chandra Prakash Shukia! who d§ed prior is three years fmm ihe date of fil§ng of suit. kt was the case of the p5aint§ff that the suit pmperty was e hut having twe rooms and the fami§y members of the piaintiff were residing iherein. in Aprii 1995, the piaintiff was transferred and thereafter, the defendanis séarted 4 ‘* 5¥esswizing mm to vacate the premSes. On his refu$ai to vacate ihe premisee the defendants got the premises demoiished on 7—5-1995 du‘ririg subsistence of tenancy On these averments the staintiff prayed that the reiationship of iandiord and tenant still centinues and the defendants shoutd he directed to reconstruct the house er upon their faiiure permit the plaintiff to reconstruct the house. The defendants, in their written statement, denied the plaint averments and stated that on transfer from Biiaspur the piaintiff had himself vacated the oremises. The suit premises was in a dtiapidated condition, which was demoltshed after receiving notice from the Municipal Corporation. Bilaspur to the effect that the hut has become untit for human dwetling and it has to he demolished in nubtic interest. The defendants aiso denied that the piaintéff has got ridht to seek reconstruction or to recover oossession’ as of tenants The defendants further pleaded that because of his poor \ financiai condition the piaintiff was not in a position to pay rent nd, therefore, he vacated the oremis‘es and handover the vacant oossession on 36—3-1 995 and, as such, under Section 111 of the H« juarsfer sf Property Act 1882 at is a case of surfender of “ease/tenancy right. The defendams asserted that the yiaintiff refused to pay the arrears 0f rem due from him for the peficd ! June, $992 to Mafch, 1995. The Mai Court on the basis of the pieadings of the parties framed issues as to whether the demoiitien was deiéberate to deprive the plaintiff from the rented premises and whether the piaintiff §s l entitled to seek {econstruction as aiso damages. The ma! Court, 1 on‘appreciation of erai evidence ted by both the parties has come {*0 ihe conciusion and recorded a finding in paragraphs‘iz and 15 of the judgmedt that the plaintiff himseif vacated the sremises and t t t t defendants have not foretbiv evrcted ham trom the suit premises ' zTne trsat Court aiso found that the ptaintrff was m arrears at rent tat? t ' March, 1995. tt is the specific fihding of the trial Court that in view i l lof the dilapidated condition of the suit house, the plaintiffs case :that he was residing in the suit house tiii $54995 is not i l beiievabie. The trial Court, thus, dismissed the suit. ‘6 On appeai preferred by the presentappeliant before the District t Judge under Section 96 of the Code of Civii Procedure, t9€§8 (for i short “the CPC") the findings recorded by the triai éourt has been ; confirmed. The appeliate Court by a detailed and reasoned order ’ :has reeppreciated the evidence of plaintiff as weii as the defendants Witnesses and whrie confirming the findings of the that curt has recorded its own reasonings aiso to hoid that the plaintiff had vacated the premises before it was demoiished i.e. on $54995. The appeiiate’ Court was aiso of the View that in the l i ii so Gowri WHW f facts ad ccumstances of the case the finding recordeo by the n ir irai Court dces not appear to be incorrect or perverse‘ a the opinin of this Ceurt the finding that the remtionfship of iandieid an tenant as no subsistirng on the date of filmg of suit 3 pure ding of fact, hich oannot be reappreciated in ‘khis .3 m w appeai under Section 00 of the CPO. ( 1 The appenan’r has not been abie to oemonstrate any substantiai ueetion of raw for etermination in this appeai. The appeal faiis “nd is herby dismissed at the admission stage iiseif. Sdl— Kumaf Mishfa. Prash’a‘“ Judge // i r y L ? i n o l ! 1 i i q d d w t a e