\^f\ IN THE HI6H COURT OF JUDICATURB CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR .«io.it^/3Qos SINGLEBENCH SBCOHD APPEAL N0 / 200S AppeUant Defendaiit Re^pondente Plaintiffs The Nagpur Mom.ui< Weavers Cooperative Society^ Moaiiinpuray Nagpur - 2 Moliarashtra^ Tbrough Manager^ R/o Main Road^ Korfoa, TahsU and District Korba (C.G.) Versus 1. Ashok Kum.ar Modi. S/o Late Kishoii Lal Modi Saajay Kuinar Modi, S/o Late Kishan Lal Modiy ^L^^ 3- RaJ^L .Modi S/o Late Kishaa Lal .^''\].^\.y .. M^i ^ ^••y ^••"^' ...^ Modi, <^. All R/o Main.Korba, Tehsil & District : Korba {C.Q.)A ^ SBCOIID APPBAL U/S 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCBDURE XI-HC-22 3^'^i<ici<<, N^re, f^rrey ^^fts-,-.^; .^ te^' 3T^T^T f^t^'3TT^T ^W^^cT ^TT^T^nwfff^r Wrf^PfrT WRfftffei^^K ^-3Tf^T3:n^T 17-6-2005 Mr, Bharat Rajput, ^ounsel fbr fhe appeUant. A suit for eviction o^id arrears of rent was filed again.st fhe appellaaf and the saine was|decreed on fhe ground of bonafide requirement of fhe suit accomnjiodation for the respondents, Civil Judge Class-I, Korba, after due fheir business aad fhe requir^ appreciation of fhe evidence, held that, fhe respondents rcquire t|ie accomLinodation for extension of ;inent is bona fide, Learaed tnal Court also considered aU ot}ier vacaat accominodations, aad ffciereafter, was of fhe opiaioi]| fhat, fhe suit accoianiodation is sidtable for the respondents ^o extend fheir busiaess. In civU appeal, Additional District Jud^e, Korba, vide iinpugned judgment aad decree dated 18-3-2005, e^aluated evidence ia detail, aad held fhat, tihie respondents, for exte^ision of fheir busio^ess, have proved their bona fide requirement, |arid the Court below, holdiag fhe same, has not committed aay ejrror. Bofh the Courts evidence, have concurrently disputed accoxnniodation is rej below, after detail evaluation of given a fhidiag of fact that, titie ^uired bonafide by fhe laadlord i,e. fhe respondents for the piirpo^e ofextendmg fheir business, After hearing leajmed coiinsel for fhe appeUaat at lengfh aad also goiag fhrough| the records of trial Court as weU as appeUate Court, I am of fhe r^=s=—z^^no substaatial question :^^^) ^- G.Singb XI-HC-22 3^T "4NI<n<M, 8>Tti«'16, fcjdiy^< ^^^t^/»s NT^^ST^WT^ 3TT^T^T _f^TW3TI^T 9bHich^f?cT / ^ ^ 3:TT^T^<n'^R:^rf?cT of law is iavolved ia this disinissed aad is accordmgty In fhe Ught of abo^ stay aad I.A.No. 1202/2005 for disfctissed ap^eal, fherefore, it is liable to be in Urrdne, ife oider, M.(C.)P.No.668/2005 for ujrgent hearing staad disposed of ct)i^fcn41ri WT^rf^te^' <Ri«i< ^i3:rf^RT3TT^T Sd/- V.K-Shrivastava Judge ((f^^^i)