14 ^ H!GH COURT OF CHHATT3SGARH AT BILASPUR Second Aooeal No.S28 of 2006 SINGLE BENCH: Hon'bie Shri Djiip Raosaheb Deshniukh^L AQpeliants/Defendants : 1. Rajkishore Shrivastava, Son of Shri Shyam Bihari Shrivastava, aged about 70 years. 2. Rajesh, son of Shri Rajkishore Shrivastava, aged about 46 years. 3. Rakesh, son of Shri Rajkishore Shrivastava, aged 44 years, 4. Rajiv, son of Shri Rajkishore Shrivastava, aged about 44 years. All castes Hindu Resident of Mohalia Khaparganj, in front of Lokswar Press, Tahsil, Town and District Bilaspur VERSUS Girja Bai, D/o Shivdayai, wife of Shri Gajadhar, aged about 43 years, Casts Kachhi (Kachhwaha), Resident of MohalJa Khaparganj, TahslJ, Town and District Biiaspur (C.G.) MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTiON 100 OF THE CODE OF C3VIL PRQCEDURE. 1908 RespondenyPSaintiff Present: Shri N.L.Soni, Counsel for the appellants. Shri Kamal Pandey, Counsei for the respondent. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 12.04.2007) Heard on admission. 2. Appeliants/Defendants are aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29th September, 2006 passed Jn Civii Appea! No. 02-A of 2006 whereby the judgment and decree passed by the 4h Civil Judge Ciass-1, Bilaspur in CJvll Suit no.15-A of 2005 on 27th December, 2005 for eviction ^ of the tenant on the ground of Section 12 (1) (c) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Acf), was affirmed. 3. In the eviction sult, the appellants/defendants had denied the reiationship of iandlord and te.nant and had pleaded that their father Shyam Blhari Shrivastava had purchased the suit house from Mathura Prasad on 2.2.1950. Both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding that the appeliants/defendants have failed to establish the said fact. 4. Shri N.L.Soni, learned counsel for the appeilants/defendants submitted that no documentary evidence evidencing the saie of the suit house by Mathura Prasad to Shyam Bihari Shrivastava was adduced by the appeiiants/defendants. He placed reiiance on Ex.D-3 to D-9 which are money order receipts for Rs.10/- per month. No inference couid be drawn in favour of the appeliants/defendants on the basls of these receipts. in this manner, both the Courts beiow have correctly recorded a finding that the appellants/defendants had feiled to establish that the sult house was purchased by their father Shyam Bihari Shrivastava from Mathura Prasad. 5. Shri N.L. Soni, iearned counsel for the appeilants next contended that in the absence of a probate, havlng been filed by the piaintiffs, no decree for eviction could be passed in their favour. He placed reliance on Jamshedji Dubash vs. Meharbai Rustumji Dubash and others, 2003 (4) Civii L.J. 335 and Darshan Singh and othQrs vs. Quyar Singh (dead) by LRs. and others, AIR 2002 SC 608. However, upon perusal ofthe record, it is clear that the defendants had admitted in notice Ex.P.4 that on the death. of Shyam Bihari Shrivastava, the defendants were residing in the house as tenants of the plaintiff. Apart from this, the piaintiffs have also filed money order receipts Ex.P.5 and P.6 for the rent paid by the defendants. In a suit for eviction, question of title is not germane. The defendants having admitted the reiationship of iandlord and tenant in the .notice Ex.P.4 and also sent the rent through money order, the defence taken by appellants/defendants is not estabiished. ^y»wi \J ^ Case law cited by the learned counsei for the appellants being cieariy distinguishable does not help the appeilants. 6. in that view of the matter, the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below granting eviction ofthe tenant under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act is impeccabie. No substantia! question of law arises for determination in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge