HIGHCOURT OFCHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Second Appeal No.183 of 2003 v\' APPELLANTS/: (Plaintiffs) RESPONDENTS/: (Defendants) 1. 2. 3. 4.- Smt. Jaivati W/o Khakhnuram, aged about 60 years Smt. Satyavati W/o Ram Kishore, aged about32 years Shiv Shankar S/o Khakhnuram, aged about 25years Ram Kishore alias Ramashankar S/o Khakhnuram, aged about 35 years All R/o Dharamjaigarh Distt. Raigarh Versus o Shriram Bansode (Died) 1(B) Rakesh Bansode, S/o Late Shriram Bansode.aged about45 years. 1(0) Mukesh Bansode, S/o Late Shriram Bansode, aged about40 years. 1(D) Smt. Ramabai Marathi W/oLate Shriram Bansode, aged about 68 years. All R/o Near State Bank of India, Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) {Second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure} Present: Mr. Anand Dadariya, counsel for the appellants. Mr. Prafull Bharat, counsel for respondent No.1 (D). Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J JUDGMENT (1-12-2011) 1. Heard on I.A.No.8 for urgent hearing. 2. I.A.No.8 is allowed. 3. Also heard on admission. 4. By this secondappealunder Section 100 ofthe CPC, the appellantshave challenged legalityand propriety of the judgment & decree dated 24-1-2003 passed by the*1 Additional District Judge, Raigarh, inCivil Appeal 'No.77- A/2002, whereby thejudgment & decreedated 31-7-2002 passea by the Civil Judge Class-11, Dhararrijaigarh in Civil Suit No.36-A/91 has been 'Ksmw •i'":l-S^»i: 1;II !i]i:i:'!!l W Vi Jj|U.';jl;!:, IIHiKl nw.:^ Ki. IIIE1 ni^ §1 1 ws:w lil'l.!,! II li ii;;il »,i<* rever&^and suit filed on behalf of the original plaintiffs/appellants herein has beendismissed. 5. As per claim of the appellants herein, the appellants herein are land lords and original defendant Shriram Bansode was tenant ofthe suit premises on rent of Rs.15/- per month. The tenant has failed to pay rent. On the ground of landlord & tenant relationship and also on the ground of bona ffde need, suit for eviction was filed. By filing written statement, the defendaht has specifically denied relationship between the plaintiffs and-the defendant as landlord and tenant and has specifically pleaded that he is in possession of the suit property as encroacher on the Government land and he himself has constructed house. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, the Civil Judge Class-11 has decreed the suit, same was challenged in appeal and the lower appellate Court by allowing the appeal and reversing the judgment & decree of the trial Court has dismissed the suit on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord & tenant between the parties. 6. I have perused judgments & decrees and records of both the Courts below. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as per documentaryand oral evidence, the defendant was in possession of the suit property. As per evidence of Masih Prakash (PW-4), he was the first tenant and after vacating the house by him, the defendant came in possession of suit property as tenant. This evidence is sufficient to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Learned counsel further submits that evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs is sufTicient to prove that there was relationship of landlord & tenant between the parties. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 (D) opposes the appealand submits that in tenancy suit the plaintiffs were under obligation to establish relationship oflandlord and tenant, but they have failed to prove such relationship and, therefore, the lower appellate Court has rightly allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. 9. As per evidenceof Ramkishore Gupta (PW-1) and Jaivati (PW-2) - ptaintiff No.l/appellant No.1 herein, the original defendant was not paying rentsince last fifteen years and used to quarrel with them, but they have not taken any action. No document i.e. rent note or rent receipt has been filed on behalf ofthe appellants herein to prove the tenancy, especially when it has beeh specifieally denied by the respondents. Evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants is not sufficiertt to prove the relationship of landlord and tenaht between the parties, inter alia, cohductofthe appellants especially not IS s&.i takingany<§ction for.fifteen years clearly reveals that they have filed to \» ''establish the relationship of landlord & tenant. On the aforesaid ground, the lower appellate Court has reversed the judgment & decree of the trial Court and has dismissed the suit. By dismissing the suit the lower appellate Court has not committed any illegality. lO.FSr the foregoing reasons, 1 do not find any substance or substantial question of law in the appeal. Consequently, the second appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order astocosts. 11 .Advocate fees as per sehedule. 12.Decree be drawn up accordingly. Soma Sd/- T.R, Sharaiai Judge