li&i" t. ||^G|l©@U:R|^E;Cl^A1^iSG3^ ^Before: Hon'bfe Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J, SecondARDeaKNo. 452 of2007 ABBellant Defendant Resoondent Piajntiff SantoslT^Sahu, S/QShri Bay Nath Sahu, by :east-Teli ]' aged about 40 years, Assistant Teacher Shamfara,: Dist. Kanker; resictent iof Amapara Kanker, Tah.&Oistrict—Kanker(C.G.) Versus Shrimati Dulari Bai Sahu, 010 Late Mariglu Ram Sahy, By Gasts-Teli, aged about 60 years, Resident of AmaRara KankerTahsil&D!stKanker(C.G4 SECONDAPPEAL U/S 100 OF CiVIL RROCEDURtECODE. 1908 ^ Preseht: Shri RewaShanker Patei, counselfortheappellant. ' ORAL ORDER <Rassedon01.-t 1.2007) Heard on admission. 1 2. The appellanVdefendarit is aggrieved by^ the judgment.and decree dated 09.08.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, North Bastar, Kanker passed in Civil Appeal No. 23-A of 2006 whereby the judgment and ^decree dated 12.04.2006 passedin Civil Suit No,46-A of 2005 by the Civil Jydge CIass-1, Kanker grating eviction of the appellant from the suit accommodation underSection 12 (1) (a)oftheChhattisgarhAcGOinmpclatjon Corrtrol Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred t6;astheAcf) was affirmed. ^ , l ^. • ' ' ' '• ' •••••'•••".tf " "::^- '•'. " .'' • / •.'. 3. Shri R.S; Patel, learned counsel for the appellant has assaited the impugned judgment anct deeree on -the soie ground that the respondenVplaintiff had failed to estabiish existence of relationshipj of landlord and tenanthetween the partiesand the aRpeltant/c|efenclanfvi?asin :> Anja^ permissive possessioh.ofjthe suit aecommodation, No other urged. LeamedcounselalsQreferrfidtothestatenaentOfrespondent/plaintiff recorded by the trial Courfc Shri R;S. Patel, learried eounsel for the appellant did not dispute that tKe appel!ant has not deposited any rent so far, 4. Having csnsideredthe sybmission, 1 have perusedthejud^ decree of the lower appellate Court as also that of the trial Court. The appellanBdefendant had admitted before the trial Couri: in his cross- examination paragraph4:thatthetenaneywasfrom monthto month andthat hel'iadrepliedtothenoticeoftheplaintiffEx.P.SvideEx.D.I.GeefaSahu, wife of the appellant/defendant had also admitted in cross-examinatibn •l ! . '• : paragraph1thatrentofthesuitaccommodationwas^s.450/-perfflonth. 5. In this view of the matter, i am of the considered opiniori that the decreeforevictionofthelappellanVdefendantunderSection 12(1) (a) ofthe Act passed by We trial Court and affirmed by the lower appellate Coyrt is imjMGcabie and n^subst^igl question of law is invqtved for detemnnation in :tliisappeal; •.'::.:;''::.: ";'::''.1:'~1,:; .: •' ; . .:;: . • .' 6. Accordingly, this appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed at the admission stage. Adecreebedrawn accordingly^ Sd/- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge .£••'•.. •\ "M • '. ."•"'"^