J%/ NK IN THE H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (c.G-) §E§E§E§ §@¥%@§$ SecondA eal No. f% [2005 APPELLANT : f/Onkar Prasad‘ S/o. Shri Lalram Barai “DEFENDANT Aged about 32 years‘, R/o. Ga’njpara, Mahasamund, Tah. & Dist. Mahasamund (C.G.) ‘ ; VERSUS RESPONDENTS K :1. Dev Raj Lunia' PLAINTIFFS ‘ S/o. Tejmal Lunia‘ aged 39 years R/o. Nehru‘ Chowk, Mahasamund Tahsil an District Mahasamund, (C.G.) .Uttam Chand Luniya i .S/o. late Tejmal Lunia, if aged about 65 years Ranu La! Luniya S/o. late Tejmal Lunia, aged about 55 years .Gautam Chand Luniya S/o. Iate Tejmal Lunia‘ aged about 48 years No.2~A to 2-C all R/o. Village xvCollege Road Mahasamund, Dist. t ' l Mahasamund (C.G.) . Smt. Sakun, Wd/o. Rameshchand Jhabak D/o. Late Tejmal Luniya aged about 40 years, R/o. Kawardha, Dist. Kawardha (Kabirdham) (C.G.) / . Ci 1121/, 2-E.Smt. Pé'rwati Bai, Wd/o. Late Tejmal Luniya, aged about 80 years, R/Q. College Road, Mahasamund '3. Parasché’nd, S/o. late Tejmal Luniya Agedabout 45 years, R/o. Mahasamund Tah. & Dist. Mahasamund (C.G.) r SECOND APPEAL U/Sf‘IOO OF THE CODE OF _ CIVIL PROCEDURE {2' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Second Appeal No. 573/2005 APPELLANT : Onkar Prasad Versus RESPONDENTS Dev Raj Lunia and others Appearance: Shri ES. Khare, counsel for the appellant. Shri Kshitiz Sharma. counsel for the respondents. SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE coon OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ORAL ORDER (27.06201 1) ?2»5«~ , V This is defendant’s appeal challenging thejudgment and decree passed by the comts below directing his eviction from the suit ’ premises on the ground of plaintiffs bonafide non residential need. (2) Plaintiffs claims to have purchased the propeity from one Kuldeep by registered sale-deed dated 9/02/1994 (EX. P-l). After acquisition of title, the appellant/defendant started paying rent to the plaintiff. He had sent money orders to the plaintiffs Vide EX.P~4 to EXP-9. According to the plaintiff he needs the premises for opening a cloth shop as also for expansion of the adjoining shop belonging to his elder brother. Both the courts below have found that the plaintiff x has proved his bonafide need. (3) Learned cOunsel for the appellant would submit that the plaintiff is in possession of reasonably suitable alternative \ iracconnnodation‘inasmuch as he has two other shops in the same town .-\ & i .5- 41 where he is carrying on the business and the present suit has been filed oniy for evicting him and there is no existing bonafide need in favour of plaintiff. (4) In the plaint the plaintiff has stated in paragraph 8 that he has no other similar place as suitable as the suit premises, In the written i statement, plaintiffs avennent in para 8 has been denied. However, the defendant has not specified as to which are the other premises in the same town from where th‘e plaintiff can carry on his business and satisfy his need. While cross examining the plaintiff who appeared as PW-l,the defendants suggested that the plaintiif has a shop near Mullaji Petrol Pump and another shop near Punjab National Bank, however, this suggestion has been explained by the witness to say that the shop near Mullaji Petrol Pump is being operated from a rented premises and the shop near Punjab National Bank on Railway Station Road belongs to hisnephew. After the said explanation offered by the plaintiff, neither any other cross examination or suggestion was made that the statements are false nor any documentary evidence was submitted by the defendant to prove that the said shops in fact belong to the plaintiff. In his examination—in- chief in form of affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 also there is no such statement that said two shops, said to be alternative accommodation, belongs to the plaintiff. (5) In the opinion of this court, the courts below have not 1/ . x r .:\ committed any illegality or perversity by finding that the plaintiff ‘ K y x i I (3' does not have any reasonably suitable alternative accommodatien to satisfy the non residential needs. (6) In the matter of M. Vijayalaxmi Vs. G. Goverdhan Reddy (1997) 11 SCC 358 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the t concurrent decree of eviction granted by two courts below cannot be unsettled in second appeal. (7) There being no perversity in the said finding, this court does not find any substantial question of law arising for determination in this appeal. (8) Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (9) MCP No. 1814/2005 for stay also stands dismissed. Sd/- l Prashant kumar Mishra Judge