HIGHW CGURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sing$e Eench gnbIeShiiDi : Li’- _i3; Jaiprakash Goyai, S/o Kapumhand GeyaL Aged about 44 years, Occupation-Truck Transportation, R/o Budhwari Bazaar, Sakii, Tah. Sakii, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Resgondent r at a}anl LaEdisml al yeas v Versus Krishna Kuma Slo Le Hal Agrwa Aged about 56 r Occupan- Grocery erchan Rro Durpa Roa Korb Ta & Disrt. Korba (C.G.) Second Aggeai under $ection 100 of the Code of Civil Pracedure . : $u0twa counselferthe appellan Sh S erma caunse! fe he responden ' (Passed one”? September, 2007) This appeai by the defendant/tenant is directed against the concurrent judgment and decree passed in Civil Appeal No.4-A/20b3 dated 19-06-2004 by Shri Goutam Chouradiya, Additional District Judge, Sakii affirming the judgment and decree for eviction passed in Civil Suit No.654-Af2002 vide judgment dated 31-01-2003 by $hri N.S.Chawla, Ciuii Judge Class-l, Sakti granting eviction of the appellantfdefendant under clauses (a) (e) (f) and (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Chhqtirsgarh Accommodation Control Act 1961 (henceforth the Act 1961 j M __aosaheb Deshmukh. J. Seccnd Aggéai No.420 of 2am Appeigant Tenant ‘ tio Mt d a h Presem Snrrmlm t rz C V r t t oRDER (2) At the hearing, Shri S.C.Verma, learned counsel for the respondent/iandlord had submitted that the respondentllandtord reiinquishes the right to evict the appeilant/tenant from the j a aecemmodation in question under clauses (e) and (f; of sub-section (1) oiSection 12 ofthe Act, 1961. (3) So far as the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below under clauses (a) and (g) of sub—section (1) of Section 12 of the Act; ‘1961' is concerned, no substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal for the foilowing reasons: 4 a (i) Besides the admission of the Commissioner‘s report by the appellant/defendant, there is overwheiming evidence on record to show that the accommodation has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation and is required bone fide by the landlord for carrying out repairs, which cannot be carried out without the accommodation being vacated. .«L (ii) ln View of the admission by the learned counsel for the appellant that there had been defaults in depositing rent during the pendency of the appeal, the appeilant is not entitled to protection under Section 13(1) of the Act, 1951 or the proviso to sub- section (3) of Section 12 of the Act, 1961. (4) ln view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondentllandlord andk'also in view of the fact that no substantial question of law arises forvdetermination in this appeai on grounds of ”tars (a) and (g) of sub—section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, 1961, the appeal is Habie to be dismissed. (5) Accordingiy, the appeal is dismissed. in the facs and circumsiances of i tHe case, the parties shall beer their own costs. i\’*7<‘~~me A decree be drawn accordingiy. ‘ ‘Sd/- Diiip RaoSaheb Deshmukh Judge