IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAT’I‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR. s.A. No. 9g /2003. W APPELLANTS. _ 1. Sanjay Kumar s/o LateMohit Ram DEFENDANTS. ‘ Dewangan, age 33 years. Netram s/o Late Mohitram Dewangan, 3‘ age 45 years. Both r/o Kumharpara, Main Road, Juna Bilaspur, Tehsil & Distt. Bilaspur, C.G. VERSUS. RESPONDENI. PLAINTIFF . Ramlal @ Sadanlal Dewangan, aged about 47 years, s/o Nawalsay Dewangan, r/o Jeet House, Dewangan Mohalla, Main Road, Juna Bilaspur, Tehsil & Distt. Bilaspur, C.G. ‘ \7 ., SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION IOO'OF THE CODE OF CIVII: gEOCEDUR‘g. ' APPEAL viLUED IN sUM OF Rs. 12,600/-.As IN T ”LowER APPELLATE COURT. COURT FEES PAID Rs. 1360Z- As IN LIEE LowER AppELLATE cOURg. ‘ ’ )mzag I V , mm$$m 5g ,, ma._.m,,,w,g ........ , ... ................... w. mm§wm %ST%W311%¥¢ N _;, £25,062oo3 I Shri Ajay DWIVE-di, counsel fof the appellants. Shri A‘P.Dub¢y, ccunselvfm the respdndent. appeal is directeti ag‘unst fhe judgment and décr€6 This; pgésed in civii-Appeal 1<Io.5—A/ 2o )2 by the 1st Addmonai Dlsmct' Juage, Biiaspur affuming tile juglgxgient and decrbe passed by thé‘St’l Civil Jndge, Class I} Bilaspur in Civil Suit Nb.99—A,’ 2002, Rajnlal V. Sailjay Kumar 65' orS. T116. plamilf hacl chimed 6x ictlqn of the (lefendantel on the L greends contained 111 Slection 12(‘1Ll(a), 1-2(1)(c) mid 12(1)(1) of the OG‘ Accommodation ContfOlVAct, V1961. His claim for evictioll i mader Secnon 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(?) was nevatived. Howelfer, his ‘ x 2g \ l clalm for ev1ctlon under Secuon 2{1\(i) was found to have been eetabHshed alld accordi;1g1y,, a ecree for emctlon ems pessed wlnich has been’affufmed byrtheF' st Appellate Couxt, e ‘ in this appeal, 'I.A.No.5340[2003 has ‘beeh filed under' I ,O‘rder 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Ciul Procedurre, 1908 stating-that the paltles Ihave‘ia’miqably, arrived at alleompromise,’ which he ‘15 recorded. ThiS apglieatien is eigne‘d by :the appellahtrNola XI-HC-22 ‘ a $5 Conditions: — amlal Dewangan The learned counsel for the appellants— Shri A.K.Prasad and the lealned‘ cminsd for \the r€sp0ndent— Shi‘ivAlPDubey have also sig11€d this applicaticn. Th6 matter has béen compromised on the following terms v The appollaxlts will hand over the vacant 2. n ‘posse‘ssion of, the suit premises to the respondent on 01.01.2004 as the appellants have n given time by .the’ respondent for va ating the suit plemises U11 o1 12 200.3 an on that day a recelpt of gettmg vacant p ssessmn of the Slut premlses shall be ven by the respondent The appellants w’ pay regularly rupee one hundred and f I 7 per month to the respondent for us . and occupatlon of the smt premlses tlll the dehvery of vacant possession of ‘t suit premises to the respondent. ’ ’ ’ Appellants do not ess this appeal as the tune for vacating the suit plelmses has been glven to the ' (.v The :appella’nts d respondent“ have « agreed to bear the; ‘ own cost ‘of the second appeal,”- iSahjay Kumar, Appellant ’N‘o.2~Netram and the respondent— e h 1 m ‘ F” , XI—HC—22 , . ‘ premiSesr in accordance with 1aw.§ / a l of the compromise referred to - alaove. However, execution shall not be levied before 01.01.2004 if the term regarding payment 3f RslSOf— is complied with. x €C0uS€quent1yL I.A.No.5340/ 2003 In 1116 abom: vi€w of the ma of the Coums below, it is direct ed that Subject to payment of 'Rs; 150/ — for use and occupation not bef appsllants/ t6nants shall :whjch‘ r \ date they shall deliver vac} the respondent] landlord. On fai} ure to do so, the. landlord shall ’ be free to, execute the decree Sand obtain possession of the E ' In View of the above, M.(C: and I.As.No.71 1/2003 85'2786/2E Certified copy as perrulesg / K ,\ Ltter, while affirming the decree is allowed. of the premises in question, The evicted before 61.01.2004 on ant and peaceful possession to f ,Havirlg heard learned counsel and considerirlg the facts and circumstances of the cas e, the Court feels that, the compromise is bona tide’a'nd should be accepted. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in terms .Ps.N0. 1 15] 2003 8r. 477/2003 303 stand disposed of; ’