O) j.^©^ c'mn'a BBBSS 2N THE H@N«BI>S SICSU OOUKT OP aiHATTXSSARH AT B2I<A^>UR SECCNE) APPEAI, N0. ^ 6 7 /2884 Al'gEa<l.»iTS ggl^DANTS ,,es^el di*e*-- 3..-"" \..--^" ly Krlshna Bevi aged atoout 60 years VQ/0 Xate Sbyam I<al Shaaana* 2, DineshhSbanna aged about 3(2. years, S/o^shyamlial^h'i^ioi 3» Ku. Arati Sharma, aged about 25 yeaf's D/oi.+shyam Lal sbaCT>a« All R/o. J'orapara, tTauahar Naga;r' Ward, near Pheol ChowKMai-ket, salpur, Tah. & Distt. Ratpurs VERSUS If Smt:» Sheela Dave aged about 79 ^ •-.„.- - _-. _J : ^ :" years, wlfe o£ I»urga Shankar Dave* \ 23^ Prashanfe Daveaged abotife 32yeiar^ S/e Burga Shankar Bavel Both resMent oi - fforsipaEa, iTawahar Nagar W&rd, Ral)p<ir, Tah» & BS-sbkt saipvir (C!*s«)<j ~Si I Ht IB! Iffi ;;T-1U SEQONB__WPE BNSER_SE@FXeN 19®OP GKVXI,fVSeSSaKB G0SSE . (APPEM._%I,UBOAI,iist_i^8/- AS WMiUSB IN THE TRXAI> GOURE BY Sll o HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.A. No. 4^2004 Appellants Krishna Devi & Othere Veraus Respondents Smt. Shsela Dave & Others. Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri counssl for tha appellants. JUDeMENT (Passed one7-3-2005) The instant second appeal has been filad by the appeltonsydefendants agairet ttie Impugned judgment and deeree ditod 17/070004 passedby 1'tAck».rasWctJudge;Ra^urinOvil Appeal No. 12-A/2002 by whteh ttis judgment and deCTee dated 03/070004 passed bySecond Chrit Ju<^e Ctass II, Ralpur In CivU Suit No. 26-M96 has been confinned. The case of the plaintlffe befors the trial Gout was that ttie suU aecommodaUon was purehased bythe plaintWfe on 31/0585 and feefore purchase, the plainBffe were residing ki ths ground floor rf tt»esateli houss as tenant wheraas In the firet floor ttwreof the defandants were] ateo residing as tanant. TheInttmation regarding transfer ofprope(ty was j by the (rialntBfe to the defendants on 07/02^6. Thereafter the drfmdants started paylng rent to the pteinUffe at theiateof Rs. 16/- pw month. The plaintiff No5 requtred ttie sirit premises fw his own reBktontlal purp|ote as at!:l;1i''' he was not getUng married orriy becaus®of ttw non-awailabMity af the suffteient acconwnodation. During the pendeney of tte suit, tte plainUff No.2 got married and after marriage he was residlr^ wlth his w e at Raipur. wever, as ths aecommtxtation in which plaintiff No.2 was residlng wzs insufficlent fer reshtenUal purpeses and ttwy dkt not have any other altemaUve reasonably wtttabto arcommodaflon availabte in the ctty of Ratpur, a reglri»rednottce was senlto tte defwictants temritatii^rthsir tenancy with sffect from 28/02/19&7. Even then Uw defendantsdid not vacate the house and as such the suit fcr wriction and damages @ Rs. 10/- per day was fitod by ths ptainUffe. The defendants denied the plaint aUegafene and stated that ihe suitaccommodation is not requiredbyplainUffNo.2 borjafictelyas hebemg in tt»emptoymsnt of Bhilal Steel Plant as Electrfcal Engineer, has becn altotted a quariBT at Bhilai and he vlsils Raipur om» in a wwk. Itwa® further statad by the d^ndante thstf there fe a house cf father of ttie ptaintffls at Pandart Tarai ward Raipur and as such the ptainWF No.2 has no requiremsnt of the altematiw independent accommodaUon in 1he cty of Raipw. The altegaUon mad&by thftplaintiffe to theeffect that the suit accommodaUonhssbecom&unsaffrfoFhuflwndwelUngwasateocteniett bythedefwidants; The sult flted t^ ths phrintBfe was deereed by the tW Couit recordingafindlngthatttie|rtainUffNe.2requlredthesuBaccommo<teBon bonaffdely for his residence as h® has no altenaUve suBabte accommodation in Raipur tewn. Howevw ttw contenUen oftia plainlNfe thatthe suit accommodaUon las becom®unsafo and forthls reason the same is required to be repaired, has baen held to be not proved; Thusfte suit for svtetion was cteGreed and damages of Rs. W- per day ws» awanted to the (riaintllfe frem the dat&of deene. Theappeal preferred by Uro defendante was dismissed by the lower appdtate Court. The findlngs recorded by boft the &)urts bele* areas undw: 1. That the family <tf the plalnBff No.Z consists of hte wife, cNklren and mother and he had only two rooms ht his possesston smd tooking to the famlly of fca plainUffe the contentfon that ths presentaccommodaUonteinsuffidertforhisresidanceandthat Vhey require soma addWonsrf accommodrtien for thelr resfdance, is bona fkto. 2. The Courts betow decrsed the suit of the platntiffis en ths ground that even the defsndant Krishna Devl has admittect in hw statement thatsuitaccommotfeition is bonafldely required by t(» ptaintUfe. TMs apart, (he wUness No. 2 examined on brtialf of the drfenttents has also admNted in his deposUitm regarding Uw bona fkte requiremart of the sutt accommodation by the plaintifls. Thus the Courts betow have arrived at the condwfon thatthesdt accommodation is required by the plaintHfe bonafktelytw thelr resldence. Leamed counsel fbr the appdlants has vehementty argued thattha plalnWNo. 2 is emptoyed bi Bhllat Stoel Plant and heis in possessfonoif the quarterallotled by his amptoyer at Bhitai and ttierefore the contenUon of the plaintKfe at he requlres the suB aecommodatlon bonrfktely, is not corract andas such botti theGourts betow oughtto have dismtesed the suitofthe plalntifls on thegreund ofwaBabllify of altamathw reasonably suitabte accommodation. However, th®contentton of Uw appeltents / defenctants cm mrt be accepted as the plaintitfe has estdalish^by adduch^ evklenee ttat he is resldlng at Raipur alongwitti hfe mother and wife and h®needs the su» aecommodatton bonafidelyforhis resictentialpurposesatRafpur. Proviston of Section 12(1) (e) of the C.G. Accommodation Control Act has been enacted for the bmeWt af the landlord whteh means tfi^ tesser irrespecSve <rf whether he te a resident of the dty or townj concemed or not, the plainUffis can not be dq>rtved sfthe rigW to grt tM» lenant evteted from th®reshtenUat premlses when Uwy are fn bona ftttej I'R m E'i S 'ii p'i JyoBsN ($) requlrement cf the same. There is no reason as to why a person who owns resklenUal accommodation shoukl notgst it fbr hte own useneariy because he is woridng out of the cify or town concemed. The Acl mdces no such classificaUon and therrfore, hi my view ftwe is no warrant for limlBng ttie provistons of Ssctten 12(1) (a) of the C.G. Accoimnodatton Control Act m the manner suggestecl by thecounsel for the appellante. Thus, the concurrent flndlngs of factrecoFcfed by botti the courts below fliat ths suit accommodation is bonafidely requlred by the plainUff No. 2 fw his residential purpose and further that they de net have jany other reasonably suUabte accommodaUon for the purpose in the city or fc»wn concemed, is based on objecdve anatysis of the evklence and materfal availabte on record and as such the sama do no* reqidre any interferenee by this Court. In view of the aforesakl discussion this Court of e viaw that thera is no force in the appeal, inasmuch as no substantial que^wi <rf law is inwrived for ite adjudfeaUon and as such ths sanw is llabto to be dismissed. In the resultttie appeat is dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge