G y 1. y- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISG-ARH^AT BILASPUR SECONDAPPEALNo ff^^_/20Q6 UNDERSECTION 100 OF THB CODE OFCIVIL PROCEDURE1908 APPELLANTS/ 0&FENDANTS RESPONDENTS •^//f ^x/ ^w ly Jasraj Shantilal Vaid, F'rQprietor ShantilalVaid, S/o. ShriJasrajyaid, age 45 years, R/o. ;Sadar Bazar, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ^2. Dheeraj Vaid, S/-o. Shn Jasraj Vaid, age 33 years, R/o. Seudar Bazar, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS Anand Kiunar S/o. Dhyan Chand T^ Jain, age about 27 years, R/o Sadar Bazar, Rajnandgaqn (C.G.). Arising out of fhe Jydgement and decree passed by the Court of Ist. AdditiQnal District Judge, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon, (Presided over by Smt. Rajani Dubey) in Civil Appeal No.28-A/2003, on 3073/2006 aUowing the appeal and decreelrig fhe suit of the respondent/plaintiff for eviction from the suit shop &'also passing decree for rent @ 90 per month till deliveiy of possession & costs throughout. i;!^^';^^?^lti©3^^ j|sil^^iN^^I^ Wffi-fSSSnsSSix f—w -"1 M TiaEABGn^ESPBEALIlAD.ARIgEN :.3UT^;'':;:'1::;:':.:.': •: •••^ T^e judge^nt ^aMd decree passe Gi^ judge 5<3ass^I, I^ Distt. R^naadgaon (C.G.) ^ Presided over by Smt. Ginja Devi 54arawi, m Civil Suit Nb. 2011-A/2001 on 23/6/2003; dismissmglthesuitdf ' respondent/plaintiff fbri enetion frpm fhe suit shop& passuigldecree onlyfbr Rs.180/- as an-earsofrent, XI-HC-22 ~ sn^rqir RaRi3n^r sblit'B)?? g'lw 3^';?irai?ra', aTfl+i'is, (siciitiy Sll^l Macb VWv\\ fhW'h -••-••-••••••-••••y^ 200 [d<>4 ^ sn^rgRiTigTgfer 14.08.2006 appellants Cobnscl Shri P.K. Verma, Sr. Verma, Counsel for fhe Shri S.C. Verma, appears on Caveat Petition N<t>. Areuments on admissk}n Order oassed as foUow^ ORAt- ORDER (14.08.20061 Appey This is the teaants' 100 of the Code of CivU judgineat and decree dated of Pirst Additional District Rainandeaon in Cwil judgment aad decree dated N0.201-A/2001 by the Rainandgaon. Distnct- The brief facts are thal) for eviction under Sections 1: the M.P. (C.G.) Accommodati<f The trial Court thc suit of the landlord. In] decree passed bv tlie trial for eviction was passed on 12(l)(a) and 12(l)(f) ofthe S^cond todati^n negativW C^vit tie saifi «hi<if<i<fl-< tiiticiTiftei^t<Ri+<iii ^ai^iTsn^T Advocate wifh Shri Raghvendra for the respondent, who .35/2006. beard. Prcxjedure RainAndeaon Appcal filed under Section This appeal arises out of 110/03/2006 passed bv fhe Court [Judee, Rainandeaon, Dista-ict - N0.28-A/2003 arisine out of 123/6/2003 passed iu CivU Suit Becond Civil Judee Class-II, (C.G.). the plamtiflF/landtord filed a suit fc (1) (a), 12 (1) (c) and 12 (1) (f) of ControlAct, 1961. all fhe erounds and disinissed First Appeal, the mdgment aad was revcrsed and thc dccree erouads specified ta Sections. Act. XI-HC-22 an^T^r teNisn^r 9>Wfi (ri?(T St)HI<h 3:sg'Hnqi^pr,.g^Trre, Ridi+i^< 3ll^l ^ach WvfTsKW """""""'"/'" V^ 200 fe^% sn^rs^iraTdf^tr provijlcs hte date whclreas, fhle Section 12(1) (a) STOund when the tenant wholc of the arrears of fhe within two months ofthe the arrcars of rcnt has becnl the prcscribcd manaer, evictmn fcom. a non-residl required bonaRde by continuine or startine his sons or uniDarried dauehte^s aay person for whosc beneflit fhat fhe landloid or such suitable uon-resulential occupatiDn in the city or Leamed counscl for Section 12 (1) (fl of thc adiruttedly, Nafhmal Mohta accommodation and after succeed in fhe owneiship oi His further submission is her 2 brothers naniely Bal shown to be her successolrs transferee fi-om. fhese two above. Une of succession set| beine the owner/landtord properlv estabUshed by a*o: towln sfaid yis tbat qiprfcpf^T iTra'eff fr'tecA'rf5R?rc. ^a'lf^rsn^r for eviction of a tenant on the neithcr paid nor tendcred the Irent lcgaBy rccoverabte fix>m him late on which a noticc of deiaand for scrved on him bv the landlord in i, Section 12(1) ffl provides for sntial accoauaodation, which is landlord for the purpose of btislaess or that of any of his inaior if he fa thc owner thereof or for icflt fhe accommodation is held aad person has no other reasonably KA»nunodation of his own in hls concemed. Ithc appcllaats firstlv areues on Act. His submission is that Ivas the owner and landlord ofthls death, fhe accoianiodation was his wife nainelv Smt. Geeta Devi. aftcr fhe dcath of Geeta Devi, Rishen and Devi Kishen havc becn and fhe present plaintifF is a clersons. He also subinits that fhe forfh bv fhc plaintiff reearding he the suit accomniodation is not e^idence on record aad the FirsJ dif XI-HC-23 ^ XI-HC-22 an^T^T (^•li* sn^r shii* flfer 3^ •<)i<4i<i<i<, yTfly'Ko, Ri<riiyti,< 3TT^5T4?|ch , jS"f3- <Z-<^6 /O^; HWMI i^,^|cb -•••"•"•••••"••7" g^ 200 ^z sn^T^gTW^fw AuDeUate Coiirt erred ia law the oiwner of the suit premlses eviction under Section l2(1) (fl About Section 12(1) (a)| according to fhe plaiat monfhly rent of Rs.90/- andl siace April 1998. His 4./ II/1999 and the scrvice 13/1/2000 aad thercafter, sum of Rs.4,860/- as the 4/9/2002. He also subinits coinpUance of Scction 12(1) 13 of fhc said Act, the passing a decree for eviction So far as eviction on arrears of rent is concemetl, advanced bv learaed counsel that ftie arrears of rent were so as to claim. beneflt ofnot] 12(1) (a) of the said Act. On| sum of Rs.4,860/- was not semce of the notice disp'ateh^d plaiutiff or even aftcr semc^ accordiae to leamed counsell on 13/1/2000, anditwasonfc? aUeaatlons submis|sK)a oflnotice fbe tliat fto Appellb.te ola <tii^td4)-t wi?iffftei^<fa)wit ^3rf^lT3n^T lin holduie fhat fhe plamtifF was Therefore, the dccree for v?as not possible. of the sajd Act, he argues that i, the premises was given at a fhe defendants •wcre ia arreais is that the suit was filed on ofthc Court was made on defendants have deposited a lamount. of arrears of rent on siace fhere was a substantive read wifh. Sections 12 (3) aad Court furfher erred in law in this count ateo. the erounds of non-pavmcnt of on the basis of araiuments K»rthe appellants, it is apparent faot deposited in statutorv period Ipassuig a decree uader Section Ifhcir oiwn saviag, the arrears ia Ideposited bv thena. either after to them by the lawver of the of notlcc of the Court, whlch, Ifor fhe appeBaats, was effected ^y deposited on 4/9/2002. III XI-HC-22 3TI^7T%T I^Ttesn^r Sh*<i«tigf?cT '^ 3^ •<ll<<lcl'i|, aiTflu'IS, RK')KH^< sn^yr'.racb NKTPTT ShHiqi^...^.^^.j^^ 200 Ri<?^, circucjistances Coilut In the facts and Court, the First ADpeUate holdine that the ground undei was inade out and the laadlotd for eviction on tUe said erouad. Siuce I have taken one to be provcd bv the First eviction can be passed on iaclnied to cnter into the eroiind i.e. the eroiuid under In the opinion of this ]aw is involved in this appcal. appeUants is dismissed aad bv the First Appellate Court The Caveat Petition No.; qil<<fc)<fl-f Wfltff fr' fS^S <.(«IWI< ^;3ri^iT3n^r fa the opinion of fhis committed ao error of law in Section 12(1) (a) ofthe said Act was entitted to get the dccree t>f the groynds to be rwhtlv held AjlipcUate Court aad a dccrec for said ground alone, I aia not cdntroveray reeardine the sccond $cction 12(1) (fl ofthe said Act. Qourt, no substantial question of |The appeal filed by thc iudement and decrce passcd confinned. (5/2006 stands dischareed. Sd/- SunilKumarSinha Judge Oourt, fflic aite