•-te-3 HISHMnJtCTyME GNyM-nSGARHaKr BIIASBUIt ^ ^iiiK'BiemiSKil^^^nlMiBHKieaUlSSffil^^ Aooellant. Defenttente eiai»'MasAaiai:k-ai»«»as=aj.ei Ste^?s!-^i^:'^:.' ,u..:..^^?,-^^ iN.K.Soni^|iren€tBtSon9^"a, ;^.:st^.:fte^i^:-s^gs^i'at^:'ll^;%? 'i^ils8^a!!S s9itW^^^^KS3 -l:^nani:.Basti,ySfflas»N^,.GtiffliiU8ia^ nDlstrirt;Raipur'<C^^-:i»^*tel!«»-" wa'''aS''!''';; Versus ?5^^:^;: •:;>1'?'~?t."^ ResBondent 4'lalnUff SFntiNeeta^iaKiUj^WoSMif^Manajeadu,; WoifW tSfsSffi^tSWW^i^^S ,Baete!,^<3^g;,,,S: SecQndJlmBeat tinder SecUonilt»dtttftfiwtejBifXSiwH BniBeduiaE-ft-iH Rresent..:-'.i.'.';l»- !. - ;.• :-,.'..-•: Smt.FouziaMi[za,counsetfortheappetlant ; i Shri ManslParaBipe, coungel fwVi-^Www^V} l'oh|lusfa)|ay:oRgc»|b|i»^BgBK.; ''Heardon'acftnission.:;:''w«-- '- :.—.-..:. M,. (2) The appetlanBd^endant te 06-GS-2(X)8 passed t?ythe 7nAdklM^ No.9-Afi007 affirmir^ the juclgtnent ;"a%^r: :.aa,i:SK '^^^^sS^'"^ >4f^! • 2m GMI Juc^Clas^ II; l^pw in<;ivi)^|^t^9§^^ ^•i,s;' i» evictlon of the terant was passed under Sectton 42 f^e^&sit2n^N|-^soK8ad ^i-i^ Chhattisgarh AccommodEttioffControtAet. (3) In ttie vi^en statement; the ai^llanWefia^nttiad<teBledthatith»^^^^^^ resppndent/plaintiffv^lhelaBctk^a^ the suit aocomrnoclationtoKusufflBai,StsteT«)fthei^pcNX|teHl^irtre^ of the appellant&letenclant^agrinst thewnGtiOFi wa&^ti^l^u^Seot^ 'tS^ip., f of the Chhatti^aft Aeoonfmodation CoritrolArt vide .onteRda^ 4^®3.2@05?A^^E was admitted by the appellanWef^dant in histestin|ion^ttet|re i^sgBBea l^ paymert of rent to Kusum Bai, slster of A& fi/'r'^- "^ '"•••",r~"-tiu. \ f ,.'3r ...y !-• ^repared^gfte^ jn^itutw ^ ^e^^^^W^ also adinltted tey thft apgellaniyfif'endant.ftat he had paid rent'forthe moBth of May&JuBe,,20Q2 to ,the respcinctent/Blaintiff. It was also .not disputed that re^)orclert^>laintiff te the daughter of Jgevdtian yadu and had rented frie acsommodrtion to-.iithe appellanVdefendant Both the Courts betow have on proper appreeiertton tf evidence deti^ed the.suit irb fayour of the r^pondert/plalrrtiff fbr ewictiog <rf the etppeltant/clefendant agairst 12 (1) (c) &,,12 (1) (e) of Ghhatti^ati Accommodation Control Acfc No substantel queslion crf taw a^ determination of this appeal which is accordingty dismissed at ihe stege rf admission. A. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Tunane