xmmmwvvxwv»wvxf~rwwb\mxmmwmam vim APPELLANTS 1: J 2. 'ta m about S. ursottam G _ ruv ged ab9ut, 28 a11 dent ursottam of main hra Tahsil 85 Dstt. un'd ($6.) EI" _ Moaa ) through Idtlshi aged ab tives legai répmsenta out 5G years ‘ m Ha}! W hmcdnW /1‘. bout 46 yrs. ‘ e put '42 years “ . aki age about 36'years w r /o. ate Ibrahim t o ain mad i \ 33nm aged " , a widow of ide pur'road , na as Video b stt. . (C.G.} _ y \ Suntan-03 about 50 year ai Ashk Kuma Cotractor re Bargarh, Dst (ariy uyu, aged, u rs, wife of Brij G dent of behind the Amara Talkies , . ‘ s m, Wife aged of Mr. \o r Sahu Excise n sidentof iLBargarh ssa ‘ aDistt'. Durg. mw' 7 ,a, ' WEGup, a / 36 years /o P upta ‘ 7 3., -smiiwata a // Gupt3a yeai's S/o‘ resi P mad B;ag1ma i Mahasam /2i mhhn am a /3 Anni agd ay 4", Wdi d ” a1! ae S L residen f M Satapali §z ‘Smt \7 fti'ma 3 bout 9 years resnt of Lal ‘ ar Aknha ‘ Bagahm Di Mahasamund 7 ‘ amt. smhi'a V? abot’48 yea ‘ Lal‘ upta resi Samara BdiJ - r ~g X2 I—HC—2 XI-HC-Z’Z WW13W $sqfamnéw W the. tenant — Pumshottam repv ’ ‘of Pums‘hottam. Leamed Ist ‘ th€ parties ‘COIifumed the mndh tha appeal. ‘ Being» aggriaved b 22] 12/2005 §assad by 'F Mahasamund in Civil Appeal filed by 1:116 dafendant/ tenant Appellant’s contennon 1s ’ 106 of the Transfer of Pmp :sentgd the appeal'aiier the. death Appellate. Court after hsan'ng'both 1gs of the trialCourt and dismissad y the judgment and- decmeTdatad ‘ irst J Additional District Judge, ‘ ~ ‘.3-A[2001, this appeai has been -- awarded to plamuE 1s h1gh1y e Fahma Begam to be legal adJudlcated legally Both the Courts below h e held that aotlce has been served on Pmushotlam m accordanc. w1th law Admlttedly Tece1pt of nouce Is not dlsputed and fr concurrem tindmgs 1t 1s owdent that the condmon of 15 days once has been comphed Wlth and ,nothmg has been‘shown to Pumshottam was not legal xthereafter his legal repreeental r accommodation and vidc nolm T Rs.10/"— per day was claimed granted the same towards dan awarded to that nottoe served under Sectlon Act was not legal Damages spmpomonate and authentxmty of helr of Ibrahlm has not been f ‘ a that . damage ggest how the notlce sewed on ‘ Admittedly Purushottam and nves are 1n oecupatlon of the amt *e from 01] 10/ 1995 damages @ and both the Courts below had lages nothmg ls on record to show s owner of thelsngjgnnses 1 , ‘ j o ’ . 1 u ' X~I-HC—22 disronate illl. ponden is abi ik 'v ad x on r dr—nmmg er a ife f b hself s W o I u B t mc e ha th eao a Beg Ira l ere t t I m ’ofthe oion th'a the a cmplotey rts h fas a ' pin cse ol es o ct nd th t Courts l onntly dcded the fct then" a bo he beow cuen e1 a eio dnot tm‘ o c whch un t I' - emit‘ mar ac o s 1 l efor u‘’qestin ilved t appea ene te 7' ea'seie to se ma aig 1se In Viw e oov fabe, M (C) P No 3/ 18 006 sn ta dis secl of l l Sd/— V.K.Shvastava Judge p6porti or ega ‘Rcst ’ldrh Shbr Anand , ‘ Whi ae ss of Ibah' . Aduttedly Smt Fahma egam 1m mtetvencd m he pecdmgs mnuon tt e rltlnshlp of Fhma am w1th blum was not dlsputod by tho appelant bfo he Cour below; dcisn oes‘ ser frm suh mf'nmty i may amot o . Péw‘y or ipilthe v’lilnyy f thoe $dmgs on aw three no sbstantialruo of law is nvo m lns l hc h applrdevs ‘be diimnsd sumnly and is ccordnly dsm1sd r1