(^o) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BtLASPUR Sinale Bench : Hon'bte SM DiJip Raosaheb Deshinukh. J. Clyil Revision No. 114/2007 ADDlicant fDefendantt Respondents Ptaintiffs Tejpal Singh Kushwaha, aged about 62 years, son of Shri Jagram Singh, retired Nirikshak, Naptaul, Distt. Uttar Bastar, Kanker, C.G., at present resident of G-1, Anand Enclave, Kushwaha Colony, Road No. 27, Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) yersus Shambhunath Dubey, son of Shri Girja Shankar Dubey, aged about 45 years, Occupation - Vakalat, resident ofAnnapuma Para, Kanker (C.G.) Sharda Devi wife of Shri Shambhu Nath Dubey, aged about 40 years, resident of Annapuma Para, Kanker (C.G.) Civil Revision Under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Cocte. 1908 Present : Shri Bharat Rajput, counsel for ttie applicant. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 2Sm September, 2007) Heard on admission. The applicant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23-04-2007 passed by Addttional District Judge, North Baster Kanker in Civil Appeal No. 1-8/2007 for arrears of rent. Leamed counsel for the appljcant submltted ftiat the applicant has already been evicted from the suit accommodation. The sole ground urged by.the learned counsel for the applicant in this reviston is that both the Courts below have erred in recording a findlng that the rent ofthe tenanted premises was Rs.400/-. It was submitted ttiat both the Courts below ought to have accepted the oral evidence of ®> ^to^^u^L that the rent of the tenanted premises was Rs.2SOf- per month. No other ground was urged. Learned counsel did not dispute that no repty was sent byjhe applicant to the notices Ex. P-24 to 31 sent by the f^endonto/plaintiffe wherein rent was mentioned at Rs.400/- per month. 1 have perused the judgment passed by the (ower appellate Court as also the judgment of ttie trial Court. Botti the Courte below have on proper appreciation of evidenceoral as well as doGUff»ntary adduced by the non-appjicants/plaintiffe, recorded a flnding that the rent of the tenanted premises was Rs.400/- per month. No such illegality or manifest error of law Ss shown in the jmpugned judgments so as to justify interference in revision. Accordingly, the Civil Revision is dismfssed at 1t»e stage of admission. i—~-—~ T Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Kvr N