HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Second Appeal,No.171 of 2011 RESPONDENT/: (Plaintiff) 1. Smt. Jayanti Bai, Aged about 38 years Wd/o Chavilal, '^^ 2. Mukesh S/o Chavilal, Aged about 21 years, 3. Ku. Rachna D/o Late Shri Chavilal, Aged about 19 years, All R/o Khelkarpara, Indra Ward, In front of Amrit Bhawan, Khelkarpara, Raipur (C.G.) Versus C. Ramarao Naidu, Aged about 76 years, S/o Late Shri Satyanarayan Rao, R/o Naveen Nagar, Behind Jyoti Church, B.M.Y. Charoda, Distt. Durg (C.G.) {Second appeal under Section 100 ofthe Civil Procedure Code} Present: Mr. S.K. Dadsena, counsel for the appellants. Mr. B.P. Rao, counsel for the respondent. Sjnale Beneh: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL JUDGMEMT (26-8-2011) 1. By this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellants have challenged legality and propriety of the judgment & decree dated 4- 2-2011 passed by the 10 Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Appeal No.SA/2010 affirming the judgment & decree dated 13-5-2010 passed by the 1st Civil Judge Class-ll, Raipur in Civil Suit No.6A/2009, whereby learned Civil Judge Class-11 has decreed the suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the appellants herein. "+- 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgments & decrees and records of both the Courts below. 3. Present appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law: - / .sf""e%, ^ -<^s^sxw1^ ^/? E-l l^l ^.? ^iaSy "Whether the finding relating to bona fide need of the respondenVplaintiff of both the Courts below is perverse?" 4. As per claim of the respondent herein/plaintiff, on the ground of bona fide need and arrears of rent, he has filed suit for eviction against the appellants herein/defendants in which the defendants have denied the adverse allegations and pleaded that the plaintiff is not interested to reside in the aforesaid premises but is interested to sell the premises. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Civil Judge v Class-11 has decreed the suit and the lower appellate Court has dismissed the appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants while placing reliance in the matter of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and anotherv. Indusind Bank Ltd., and others (AIR 2005 SC 439) submits that the respondent herein/plaintiff has not examined himself as witness, but his power of attorney holder i.e. his daughter who was not competent to depose on behalf of the plaintiff has deposed on behalf of the plaintiff. Learned counsel further submits that the daughter of the plaintiff (power of attorney holder) was not competent to depose on behalf of the plaintiff and, therefore, by examining his daughter, the plaintiff has not proved his case. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the appeal and submits that concurrent findings of both the Courts below are not required to be disturbed without any cogent evidence and witness of the respondent herein has deposed the fact which was within her knowledge and has not deposed for the respondent. The appellants have virtually, not adduced any evidence to defend their case. 7. Onclose scrutiny of evidence and pleadings, 1 do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgments & decrees passed by both the Courts below. Consequently.lhe substantial question of law formulated for the decision of this appeal is decided as negative. The appeal is devoid of merit, same is liable to be dismissjed and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 8. At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellants prays that the appellants are poor persons and at least some reasonable time be given \ to them foc.evictLon from the suit premises. ...«!•?':"^««* €..A.'<^\1 ^•"" •;:'^. '-^ i ^ 1 1M ^,. *!s€/ '^s-y '^ 9. Considering the request of learned counsel for the appellants, five months' time from today is hereby granted to the appellants for vacating the suit premises with a condition of paymentof all dues recoverable under the decree. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Soma -v»s^^l^^..^~^-^,._^.^