m THE ma; c oURT OFuCHHAmxsagaH Aggxniiesgug SECQND APPEAL Nagyg ‘ OF 2004 §m§§$ %m§% § wmmmm A’ Riaz Ahmad/addique', sen o£ r m...— Niyaz Ahmad $iddique, aged about i ‘ 4m‘iNDAm 32 years, Occupation : B usiness, 1 i resi&ent 6f Farra- dand, Ambikapur ’ Tahsil z mbikapur, District a surguja ( C.G. ) VERSUS m k K RBSPONDEN£$ 1. Smt. §ratibha Devi Sinha, Wife of late Uma Shankar PLAINTIFFS §rasad Sinha, aged abut v 55 years, Madhur. Shyam Sinha, Son of x late Uma Shankar Prasad $3inha, ‘ aged about 35 years; i 3; Manjul Shyam Sinha’; Son o£ <” late‘shri Vijay Exhank a r Sinha, agea about 35 years ( All are resident of Deviganj q; Road; Ambikapur, Distt ’: Surguja q. "" CuGo' ) ‘ ‘ \ \ DEFENDAN? 4 Md. Nasim, son of Md. Nazir, 12: Kn ‘/’ aged about 42 years,“ Tailoring Shop ( Natraj Tailor) Deviganj Road, Ambikapur, Distt : Snrg'uja ( C,G. ) MEWRANDUM 9F APPEAL UNDER SECTIONfiOO OF TEE 00m OF CEVXL PRO CEDUREL 1908. “’ \‘Valuation of Appeal Rs. §,5oo.oo .Court fee o£ Rs; 360.00 affixeg as pe; W ’Oma'.2/"‘ Ea Wjqw‘i ifziiém‘v; s f} SW/M xgggiEw gwég a‘éfé‘E wax gwmq) awa’w 3a W 1 ”~31 aw: gwt; :FW1 'z-ifw aW§ l 1 09-92-2005 ‘ Shrl V K Pandey leamed comic?“ appeuam ators Mon the que’suo'n'ofvadm ‘ shn Manoj Patampe fattha This second appeal m W mjudmrw dame f eviction on the ground that me orig nal tenant had indwd sub tenant without written consent of the landio according to Section 12 (1) (b) of the Chhamsgarh Accommodation c oi Act which was subsoquonttyvxz confirmed by me First Appeliate case‘otme-piaintirrberom‘ th ourting that the suit premises e piaintiir namoiyi Late Suit; W > rant ofrRs. 259t- on-oiogroundv that than was an agreemem of tena ¢y executed on 30/09l1 9877mm: N being a shop was given an tentb Devi and the respondentNo. 3 fou monthonpm1m saloon and on'enquiry it was iau GL DR] FS/3SO 12/2000—50,000. v i Wm“ 2G6 i 3 arwm aw ‘t‘i f§€i “{E‘mg‘n %ai&T-éi W i i + i i i i i No.2 opened a hair among M'defondant‘NoA had inducted "Z femw-imtappeiiantldeiendam“ .' 12/10/2004 passed by them bythoimpugnodjudament. e 1 c e n w : ‘ e i . m; m > ‘ yr , Additional District Jumi Ambikapur w ing merjudgmomand decree datedv 2W passed by GM! i v: Class I; Ambiiapurincivil suit- No. 24mm. mermai Court - 2 . me‘suit med by the plaintiff for W :éi? 5W; E9???T4T€, f>§§h¥§ 9H 529/0? V 7 331%: E5? @W‘te% 2w m am 3% J x \ \ ‘ wags"? @m aa%~“( 31W 1w? {ya-aw) ‘4I _Q‘— GL DRJ~FS/350‘l Z/2000~50,000. "MAF““‘ AA defendant No.2 as sub tenant. Th 07/04l93 was sent to both the de WW}? “gm???" 13f fmau WtiR Aw a?) $4a‘fm if 611$! During the pendenoy of the suit plintiff No.1 died and in her place Defendant dw‘ raised M No.1, Katine Devi, alluher legal ithin thmperiod prescribed and e. Non payment of rent was also was being regularly paid by the r iww ggégag f??? “ k 2GQ r a registeredbgatmotiee datsd- . us; HoweVet, Imteadmf reptying ta the said nwce. the dlefendmt No.2 inshtutsd a Civil suit against the V plaintiffs before the second 'Addmon District Judge. Ambikapur praying for perpetual injunction against the f lble eviction from the premises. it was also alleged that the rent of e premises’was not paid by the defendant since January 1993. In th joint written$atementthe case of the defendant was that as per the erms of this agreement executed between the plaintiffrNoz and defen nt No.1. the premises was vacated by defendant No.1 on 30/09/90 and the vacant possession of the suit house was handed over to the plainti and thereafter the same was given on rent as per the oral agreement. se ice of legal notice was denied and» it was stated that Civil Suit againstfor ible evwon was med by defendant No.2 and the same was dismissed the trial Court. However, defendant urt and thesame is still pending. No.2 preferred an appeal in the High respondents 1 and 2 were sub I objeodon that anerthe death of heirs have not been brought on therefore, the suit was not maintai : w . w w n l gar? wizwa, WEEK? mmm 3%??? Tram? {awg‘ma} uéEI E5? @WEG? ‘i g W “W Egg . aw? é a WW”?W \ I § @Eé? €Wxr m i Q mw$f2<$im§ ~15“ E $ar€zwmi¥l 5 \ a Leamed tiai Court by the Vim ugned ’judgmne‘decreed meant 'ng that the suit premises was 9 an on sub tenancy by dgfcndaat» .1 to appetlantidefendant No.2 mete was no on! ayeament of- ancy between me plaintiffs and a liadldetandant No.2 with respeet the tenanted premises and the taintiffs: wete aimed far vacant. on of the said premises. Ho er; the chime! the piaintiffs thw- rent from February 1993 has not been paid was Jsailowed as netw v roved. The eheve judgment of e m Ceurt ms wheequentty». conmmodby the mt Appetrate court mrmpugned Judgment tru the:- : suit was decreed in favour of the resp nsNoA ,2 ands under Sech‘on: ‘12 _ (1)(b) or the Chum Acao modaean Controi Act (hereinanwg referred to ee’Act. for convenience). Leamed counsel faint-”pea mailed'the‘impugm iudgment i measunder ersecuen 12 or the Acthas net: me Bat. die-‘plaintilf M eitrw ughtemeeerd; giverron rent byvme plainh'iis te o. 2 and mennding'ofthe trial inducted Mndant No. 2 as sub erial avnllebie on record; ’ J‘V 9 ' n ' 3 i p p M o e N is obsewed in the ieading case of sociaud Hotel ¢ india Lid. Vs. “ 5.3. Sardar Ranjit Singh malted AIR 19& w 933‘ where it isrheid: ' that in a suit by the 'iand lord for- of tenant on the wound of sub“ iettlng, the landlord has torprove by ng widenee M (i) a thirdmw Was found b be in em afiharrented pmpedy. and-( a) partingof pass as slon thereof was y oonsidotatiom ' In my opinion the law ‘ rding suh lowing is well sowed as i for The above principie ms re tad by me Apex court from urne toe- wie Vs. Ganpat Rae reported ink: of Ex. P~1 is aiso admittod. As per e nt snail not~keep he sub tenamu '- ty in’question. The defame of mg in, possession of tho warned beiow to ho not proved as the onus of DW-1 and DW—Z arrived at the ~5~ i e i r r Wm WWW cg=m¥"1Tr’<§, @awg? ..529 0 .......... {*EW? @i‘m? a???) iaa? IKai ’9“: § WWW ; ,mmmm, arm "r23:W am 331% ”WW g E'vma afw am?!" WWW W ifW $f§$§f£ XI~HC—78 W (Wm ma%arr%m S" mam mm WW&WW %WW€¥I N as als taken a stand me said remiae was uderod him nd thereafter it was hi ef defenda y ho pltif. ut tiledlmbyihdefandant a ory defendant N. . Even neim f h defandam havwbeen xamined o 2 er o te e hr ‘ th ria our. gocument to ts fecfhas V In that circumsta nndin recude i wawt defenda‘Noz was nted u enam efendant oes ot reque any interferece. n he hat efendan o anduote as u enant by dendn i iha a r was no rivity ontrac betwee th pia ct n e i i . H respndent! * t nd- e appllant/deMdant No.2 and refore, thbjetion fthe tant tha h as not sewed with me iega in enn fction ofe c he n eri - onclusion that Want has rev he Ma tenam efondn c W m p. t i y Dat” r o1 h e at pa smn by a 2; w nt No.2 b t amf B m“ : eeta N;1 b e l Ct » n ma g d n d M nt iduc sb t by d NM d n ' ir n Gee it is id t dt N.2 wsid sb t efat ' .1“. n t cse thee p of o 1 o 3‘ a m e é o e-oc o en t e w i w ts ose 12 m At, s- o mt; - The Apex Court in the atter of Rajhir KnurVea s. Wri &~' Co. reported in (1 989) 1 $66 13 andin the mabr of Bharat Sales Ltd; ' Vs. U6 ofindia reported irH $661, has heidthatsubtenanoy org sub letting comes into existen when thetenantvlglves up posseeeion of the tenanted aocommodation‘ liyor in part and puhanother pom III exclusive possession thereof r This arrangemem oomes about obviouoiy under a mutuat agreanent or undemndrng between‘the tenant and the n is so delivered in this process, the *6 WW am ._ \ r \ " f : ” i o 3&7 véwm w"?! D IQW WWWWM ¢ vgm 2m) w%w Wa? {§§§‘§@§§} v aw q, W g _ a W9 g “6mm 53‘1” W€r§§ iW? ‘Kg I rwc'wrm ‘ ‘ V %‘ ' Raga “31 _ éh j %®'§‘?C?oi aWQE V i V 3 mm is kept omoithescene. Ram v, mescmkenacw behinww paid mommy aonsidorawnto‘ Isaaessemialelementoflease paid in lump sum In advance sssislotoutbrsub-Ietunmay uponmefacucfihem" ofexciudveplossessiontovinferw i!’ _ 7 sa v 7v w i tame