HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT Plaintiff RESPQNDENTS Defendants SECOND APPEALNo. 288/2011 Mohammed Sheesh Quraishi, aged about 39 years, S/o Mohd. Shabbir Quraishi, R/o Tarbahar, near Masjid, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.j. Ramesh Kumar Soni S/o Rajaram Soni, ^ Manju @ Guddu S/o Rajaram Soni, Both R/o Fazalbara, Karbala,BUaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.). VERSUS 1. 2. SECONDAPPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) ^tfv •Present: Shri Saifuddin Rajas, Advocate for the appellant. Respondents not noticed. JUDGEMENT (Passed on 16/09/2011) 1. By this second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil "Procedure Code, 1908 appellant has challenged'the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 21/7/2011 passed 'by 5th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 04-A/2010 whereby dismissing the appeal filed against the judgment and deeree dated 29/9/2010 passed by 8th Civil Judge Class-II, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 40-A-2010 dismissing tRe civil suit filed for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent under Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. 2. Shri Saifuddin Rajas, Advocate for the appellant is heard. 3. Both thejudgment and decree impugned perused. 4. Judgment and decree of botb the Cou.rt below clearly reveal that presentappellanthas»'failed to establish landlord and tenancy relation which was sine-qua-non for claim of eviction or any rel'ief under Chhattisgarh Aceommodation Cbntrol Act, 1961 in summary proceeding. 5. Learned courrsel for the appellant submits that Court below has arrived at a finding thatrespondents were licensee therefore, Court .^fc&s.^^ ^ "~<?-^ v. WSS^ 9 SR^; -^-~^ -^S. ,w •^ •:. •'..^ ^ '"%. '^.-^?"^ '3^-.. w ^"' '^^^ra?^1' ;./ "L.- ^/ was competent to grant decree for evictioh and also competent to convert tenancy suit into regular suit for eviction; . , 6. Nature of trial and proceeding in summary and regular suit not one of same. On the basis of finding of both the Courts below, appellant may .adjudicate its claim for eviction on the basis 6f Ucense in regular suit. On due consideration, I do not fmd any substance in the second appeal involving substantial question of law. Gonsequently, second appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. ___ Sd/- T.P. Sharma ^