t("t/) "s IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR; SECOND APPEAL N0. ^'c^ /2004 / APPELLANTS .-DEFENDANTS 1] Sukhsagar Gorakh Son of / ..^;y y>- ^ RESPONDENT J(LAINTIFF Ayodhya Prasad, aged 48 years. 2] Prem Sagar Gorakh S/o (\ Ayodhya Prasad, aged 45 years,. Both resident of Dayalband Bilaspur [C.G.] VER8US Madhukar Joshi son of Prabhakar Joshi, Retired Railway employee, aged about 65 years, R/o Dayalband Bilaspur [C.G.] ^^•' APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE APPEAL VALUED AT RS. 720.00 AS IN COURT BELOW ON WHICH COURT FEE STAMP OF RS. S'b^O IS AFFIXED. XI-HC-22 3^?T'^T 'f^Tw^n^T 9r)^icn ^f^a \ '.^ v-i'- ^ "3^ET ^t4H^I, ^'^l^l<o, fa^Kiy 3TT^T XR^ __...^.:.A:. WWTT 5bN|cb 200- I^^T' 11.02.2005:- Shri Malay Kumar Bhadhuri, The instant second ak appellants/defendants agajnst the by the learned IVth Civil Judge, Cl| plaintiff/respondent for ejectment bonafide necessity and on the grou|nd and 12(1) F of Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as "Act"). >peal has been preferred the i|npugned judgment and decree passed iss-11 Bilaspur bywhich the suit of the las been decreed on the ground of of non user under Sections 12(1) D lAccommodation Control Act, 1961 thlat The case of the plaintiff wat rent at the rate Rs. 60/- per month) plaintiff wherein it was pleaded premises since 1984 and has locke| required for his unemployed son intends to open a typing institute suitable accommodation available The respondent/plaintiff also pleadejj which the tenancy was terminate< defendants were not paying the rer the defendants did not pay rent possession of the ffaTd property and | In reply, the defendants dis| stated that they are regularly payins the premises was locked since 19 <=hl^l(d<4l'1 'RW^f'? f^t <Rn^i< ^3i7NH3T[^T arned counsel for the appellants. that the suit premises was given on since year 1976. The suit fited by the the defendants were not using the the same and the said premises was jnamely Mahesh aged 34 years who Ind for the above purpose there is no ^ithin the corporation area of Bitaspur. that vide notice dated 30.08.1999 by with effect from 30.08.1999 as the ^t. Even after the receipt of the notice, and nor they delivered the vacant Iherefore, the suit was filed. -i- t |uted the contention of the plaintiff and the rent to the plaintiff and denied that ?4. They atso denied that the plaintiff ["^"^ ^Rs^! :i_.,.- XI-HC-22 3:n^t'^T f<'li<=b 3TI^T $h^w <rif^a \, k^.' TocT ^lHH^I, ^xi1^<«o, i^crtKiy HW^i 5hN|cb 3:ni^r tra^? ..£::^.:..e6S/& '^^T' ^TT^T'^nW^rf^T " 2-- needs the said premises for his son| The averment that the plaintiff) accommodation within the Bilaspur his son was also denied. They stat< replied on 12.10.1992 through the|i Rs. 2160/- which was duly received bfc thbt Learned Civil Judge by the ijii that the plaintiff needs the suit premj son and he does not have any s( Bilaspur town. It was further held ofthe accommodation since 1984 ar plaintiff. However, the learned trial prove the default in payment of rent the decree on the ground of Section the tenancy was legally terminated s|( the damages from the date of the| confirmed by the First Appellate dismissed the appeal. Learned counsel for the ap| judgment basically on the ground tha' erroneous appreciation of evidence. vehemently argued that the plaintiff accommodation and non-suitability tt on the ground of Section 12(1) Fo plaintiff is required to prove the sam< chl^lfd^'1 ^ll^dT"? f^t <r3l«fi< '^3rf^P:T3^[ who wants to open a typing institute. does not have any alternative ;orporation area for the business of id that after receiving the notice they counsel and also sent a draft of the plaintiff. IJYipugned judgement and decree held Jses bonafidely for the business of his jitable alternative accommodation in the defendant has stopped the use |d has locked the same to harass the ^ourt held that the plaintiff could not |and therefore he was not entitled for 12(1) A of the Act and it was held that s|o the plaintiff was entitled to recover judgment. The above finding was C^urt by the impugned judgment and frellants has assailed the impugned finding ofthe trial Court is based on Learned counsel for the appellants |is required to plead the altemative 'jereof for the purposes of ejectment the Act and after pleading this the However, in the instant case there ^w^ XI-HC-22 '3^ ^||^H<4, ^Ti)<l<l<i, ^<1l^1< 37T^T'^T 'h^ sni^r ^-rw^-n 'V\ ^. > WWrlT 5h^lGb 3TTit?T ^S^K ^...S.:A.:..6..^&1^ ^_ IN^T' a?n^r'^TT^R';Rf^r -.3- is no pleading, therefore the suit| ground of Section 12(1) F of the| decree under Section 12(1) JP of relied upon the statements of Ff trustworthy. 1 have heard learned couns the pleadings of both the respe|ctive witnesses. As far as the objection that any suitable accommodation for paragraph 6 of the plaint, the suit premises is bonafidely require< his son who wants to open a typin plaintiff does not have any sui business in Bilaspur town. Thus,- the want of pleading the suit could of the Act na^s can not be eviction under Section 12(1) D of have categorically stated that the years and in the cross examinatioi by the suggestion .po behalf of the statements of the above witnessei remain unrebutted by the appellant admitted in his statement in the premises on rent for a monthly rat< accepted <=bl^(d<lflT1 ^l^<^T'?'feTst ^^K ^73rf^R37T^T could not have been decreed on the Act. 1-1e further contended that for a ie Act, the Courts below have heavily /2 and P/3 whose testimony is not for the appellants and gone through parties and submissions of the thle plaihtiff )laintiff has not pteaded that he has not business of his son is concerned, in has categorically pleaded that the by him for thepurpose of business of institute in the said premises and the table alternative accommodation for ie contention of the appellants that for jnot be decreed under Section 12(1) F and as far as the other ground for l|he Act is concerned, PW 2 and PW 3 Idisputed house is locked from seyeral this contention has not been rebutted Ippellants/defendants and therefore the that the house was locked for years ^/defendants. The defendant has even iCourt that he had obtained the suit of Rs. 60/- and they were conducting ['lTt^'^Rl^ XI-HC-22 3:n^T'^T f<^i<=h ^^ $t^^ict) ^f^a -3T55[ ^||^|H<LI, ^Tll^^Ko, fG)«y11^y WW11 5hHI<^ 3^?T 'q^? _.<s;..^...^^Z<rlr. ^ 200 "f^^T' 3?TT^T'^TT8?T ^Tf^T _cy^ <=hl^td<tflw1 ^\^'? 1^21 iPsi^K '^3rf^TR3n^T v' li / ^~-.._; joint business. It is admitted that h^ year 1976 and when hejoined his Katghora. Thereafter, his brother Ff premises and after his joining his started business in the suit premisesj. Both the Courts below aftel" records arrived at the concurrent bonafidely required for the plaintiff the defendants have failed to accommodation for the said busin^ sound appreciation of evidence and| the contention of the defendants tht his business in the house itself hasl compelled by the tenant as to how| the discretion of the landlord only. upon the decision of High Court of of Tikamchand Vs. R-akash had obtained the house on rent in the services in the year 1981 and went to remsagar started business in the suit sen/ices, the third brother Bhavsagar Charldra analyzing the evidence available on ;onclusion that the suit premises was :o start typing institute of his son and prove that plaintiff has alternative ?ss, The above finding is based on does not call for any interference and it the son of the plaintiff can continue no merits as the landlord can not be he should conduct his business. It is |The counsel for the appellants relied ^ladhya Pradesh rendered in the case reported in 1991 J.L.J. 642. and submitted that it was incumbent up< suitabte alternative accommodationl and even then decree under Sectioh same is of no help to the appel paragraph 6 of£Tiis plaint thal accommodation for the purposes plaintiff has also established his cas|e under Section 12(1) D of the Act a| \r\ the plaintiff to plead that there is no for starting the business of his son 12(1) f was passed. However, the |ants as the plaintiff has pleaded in he has no suitable alternative shop of his son. Furthermore, the for ejectment by proving the ground the tenant is not using the premises ~|^. . • [Tfi^ ^f^^ XI-HC-22 37T^T'^T R'lJcb S^\ $r)^ict^ ^f^a \ '-r ^^ / 'TocT ^i^id^l, ^Til^Ko, IG)«ni<iy 3^?T "q^? ^.S.;..S..:....6^Z(?^L ^.^....-..^.......w....«..«....^^ 200 Hl*l<rll ^Wcb f^^T' since 1984 and this fact has been and there is no cross examinationl point. Looking to the concurrent fincj the opinion that the plaintiff is the b^st in this regard reliance is placed u^on Pwm Narw/QH BQfchhfhQ Vs. HiifQmuddin SaJff wherein it has been hetd that for the purposes of evicti the landlord is nof required to accommodation for non-residential analyses, 1 am of the opinion that i( Courts below, there is no infirmity law involved for adjudication of th( deserves to be dismissed at the dismissed. Looking to the facts and circ(imstances no order as to costs. cbl^fd^l'l 'RPR^f ^ f^t if^l^K ^7 3:Tf^TH 3:T1^T roved by the plaintiff by oral evidence on behalf of the defendants on this ngs of both the Courts below, 1 am of judge to carry on his own business. AIR1999 Suorem& Court 2450. 'n for non-residential accommodation, prove non-suitability of residential purposes. Thus, on the aforesaid the judgment and decree of both the nd there is no substantial question of second appeal and thus the appeal dmission stage and it is accordingly of the case, there shall be Sd/. Judge D%@^»^ [Tft^'?fezf S<s