sv '••S!^ XG'^S!S'WWf'S:-*t:t^'WW»S SSs-!-'-UesS 4" '^ ^. IN THE HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISG2^RH AT BIL^SIPUR (C.G.) SECOND APPEAL N0. o?^ /2005. SINGLE BENCH APPELLANT. (Plaintiff) ^ nr '.^^ . c i!.-% ^Sf> .^<^ ^0^, ^M.A. Faheem S/o Late Shri M.A. Aleem^ aged about 46 years,0ccupation Jurnlist, resident of Salhevapara Dhamatari Tahsil & Dist. Dhamatari (C.G.). ^^ .»<'....- VERSUS ^E^PQNDENT (Defendant) Smt. Keja Bai Wd/o Late ^ shri PrabhuRam Sahu, aged about 54 years, occupation shopkeeper, Resident of Sihawa Chawk Dhamatari, Tah.S Dist.Dhamatari(C.G.) ^•^',/" SECOltt) APPEAL U/ S 100 OF CIVIL PROCUDUKE CODE. XI-HC-22 ^TI^T^T f^f^3TT^T ^TT^^f?cT ,._/ IN»^, 3^ ;;TFn^PT, «»Tft'H<l<o,fcldiy^< ^^t^.l^.f 3TI^T^:clTW:^f?cT 17-6-2005 Heard on admis also perused the records of| Coiirt. A suit for evictio] chl^f^^v1 ^l<4<vlT^:tel^t<f^«K ^3:rf^q"3T1^T Mr, R,S,Patel, coi^nsel for fhe appeUaat. ^ion and M.(C.)P.No.634/2005 and fhe lower Court and first appellate and arrears of rent was filed by the appeUant agauist fhe responc^ent on fhe ground fhat fhe appeUaat had constnicted a shop pve^ 105 sq,ft of land bearing Khasra No.254/2 situated ia nort4eni side of Sihava Bypass Road, Dhaintad and rented fhe sam|e to fhe respondent in fhe year 1987 at fhe rate of Rs,20/- per Bio|ath, The respondent stopped payiag rent firom 1-9-1988, therefor^, a rcgistered notice was served on her for recoveiy of rent aad ^viction of ftie suit shop on bonafide requtreinent. Neither fhe ar^ears of rent were paid nor fhe siiit shop was vacated. The respcj fhat, fhe laad, over which] Goveraiaent, and ia rcvenue aad is runiiiag her business| »ndentdenied the claim, aad averred the shop is situated, belongs to record, fhe saine has been recorded ia the nanie of PubUc Workjs Departinent. It has been furfher averred by fhe respondent th^it, she has constructed fhe said shop therein, aiid Dhamtari Municipality has also rccorded her naine ^nd assessed to tax, EarUer, ia CivU Suit No.7A/65, vide judgmeiijt dated 30-4-1966, fhe laad, bearing Khasra No.254 part 0.22 a^res, was declared ia f^vour of fhe XI-HC-22 3^ ^NM^I, ^Tfl^ltf, fs)dl^^< 3fT^T1^^ ^?-A; M©.^^3/^j^ Hmc[Tst»*ll<h"""^<<<-"<'-'<-J^ 200 sn^r^r f^TT^^n^T ^^lcb^f?cT $h^jcb H^^ G.Smgh -.// ^ ^ ^?T^:cTTW:^f?cT +Mfd41'1 ^l^dT^-T^ <^|< ^3:rf^R'3TI^T appeUaat, but fhe whole area rf fhe laad has been sold by fhe appeUaat to vadous persons du^iag fhe years 1968 to 1978, Leanied lower Cou|rt, after due appreciation of fhe whole evidence, held fhat, fhe disputed property and fhe resp jBrst appeUate Court, after due ^ |appeUaat is not the owner of the t)ndent is not his tenaat, Learaed ppreciation of aU the niaterials aad evidence on record, vide judgn^ent dated 27-8-2004, deUvered ia Civil Appeal No.3A/04, held that, fhe appeUaat is not fhe laadlord/owner offhe suit pro^erty aad the respondent is not his tenaat, aad also held fhat, &G|na/idte requireinent has not been proved ia fhe case, Both fhe Courts b^low have given concurrent finding records, niaterials and evidence, I of fact, aad froin perusal of fh^ am offhe opioion fhat, fhis ap^j law, The appeal is Uabl^ question oflaw iiivolves ia it f{ In fhe Ught of ab<( stay and I.A.No. 1159/2005 for| ieal does not iavolve aay question of b to be disiaissed as no substaatial ^ccordmgly, itis disinissed inlimine, ^ve order, M.(C.)P.No.634/20G5 for [urgent hearing staad disposed of^ Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge (lft^^fe^-)