M[ •IX ^- ^- ^ €> HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Singje Bench : Hon'bie Shrl Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. Appellant Defendant Second Appeal No.307 of 2007 Sakina Bee, Widow of Nanhe Minya, Aged about 80 years, Resident of Jawaharbada, Juni | Line, Bilaspur, Tahstl and DistrictBilaspur (C.G.) versus Respondent Piaintiff Jeetlai, aged about 42 years, S/o late Chiraunji Lal, Tent HQuse Owner, R/o Old Bus Stand, behind Suvidha Lodge, Bilaspur, Tahsii and District Biiaspur (C.G.) Second^appeal ynder Sectjon 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure Present : Shri K. A. Ansari, Sr. Advocate with Shri Firoj Siddiqui, counsel for the appeliant. Shri Vishnu Koshta with Shri Gautam Khetrapal, counsel forthe respondent. (2) (3) ORALORDER (Passed on 13th August, 2007) Heard onf.A.No.02 of2007fortakingdocuments on record. Application is allowed. Documents are taken on record. Also heard on admission as also I.A.No.01 forgrant ofstay. (4) The appellant/defendant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22-06-2007 passed by the FirstAdditiona! District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.)inCivjlAppealNoJ6W2Q06wherebythejudgmentanddecreedate^^^^^ 25-01-2006 passed by the 2nd Civil Judge Class-l, Bilaspur jn Civil Suit No.331 -A/2005 granting eviction of the appellant/defendant from the suit accommodation underse(rtjbn 12(1) (e) ofthe Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act (hereinafl:er referred to as the Act) was affirmed. V. l^'l'j. .^' I; l":t:- •-^' ^ ^ ::Mi9^!Si^SiiiSSSiSiSiiiiii8^^SiSj^U^S^ (5) Shri Ansari, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant/defendanturgedtwogroundsinthisappeaj^^^^^ (A) that, both the Courts below have failed to cpnsider the admission made by the landiord Jeetla! in para-10 and^^^ ascertain Ihe-bonafide requirement of the landljord. It was urged that admittedly, the landiord was in possessioh of accommodation sufficientfor his residenceandwasactually^^^^ (B) secondly, it wasurged that the lower appellate Court has erred in rejecting the application under Order 41 Rule27 ofC.P.C. filed by the appellant/defendanttoshowthattherespohdent/plaintiffhadsold theadjacent plot beforethe institution of suit. | (6) Shri Vishnu Koshta, learned counsel for the respondent/piaintiff opposed the application I.A.No.1 forstay and contended that there was a clear admission by the appelJant/defendant that she was not residing in the suit accommodation since about a year and both tlie Courts be!ow hav upon an objective assessrnent^the^^^^^^b plaintlff recprded a finding that the suit accommodation bein place of busjness was required bonafide for residence by the landlord/plaintiff. !t was also urged that the lowera rejected the applieation under Order41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. for cogent reasons since the sale deed ^A^asexecuted priortothedateofinst^^ (7) Having heard rival submissions, 1 have perused the impugned judgment as also the judgment deiivered by the trial Cp consideredthegroundforrejectionoftheapplicationunderOrder41Rule27 of C.P.C. It is not dispyfed the document i.e. sale deed sought to be producedwasexecutedpriortotheinstituti^ ^•1 ^r^ ^ ^- ! (8) It is weli settled that the bonafide requirement of the plaintiff has to be tested on the date of suit and before granting eviction under section 12 (1) (e) of the Act, the Court is required to objectiveiy assess and ascerta^^^ bonafide requirement of the landlord. In the present case, both the Courts below have upon'an objective assessment recorded a finding of fact that being nearer to the place of business of the respondenVplaJntiff, the suit accommodation was required bonafide by the iandlord/piaintiff for his residence. In view of a concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below, no substantial question of Faw arises for determination in this appeal. (9) In the result, the appea! is dismissed at the stage of/admission. I..A.NO.I for grant ofstay aiso stands dismissed. (10) At this stage, ShriK. A. Ansari, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appeilant/defendant prayed that two months time be granted to the appeltant/defendant to vacate the suit accommodation. Shri Koshta, iearned counsel forthe respondenVplaintiff did not oppose the prayer. As prayed, two months time is granted to the appelianVdefendant to vacate the suit accommodation. Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh "X :'"