HK3H S$U§? GF $HH§3T§SGA§§H AT BILASPUR OR£L CREER gPassad 0r; 2"“ JuEy, 290?} A: the vea'y outset, Shri B.P.Sharma, ieameé counse! far the rasmndert/p amf‘ff submitezi *hat .9 re! muimes h s rgh‘r of ewc‘t'en ox ihe ap e!‘ r/zjefendam wder Secmw 12(1)(k\ 0‘? the (Tm, sgarh Acwmmaéation Comm? Act, 1%1 (hencefarth ‘the ACE’}. yme {2). FgaYd $hr§ Abhay T§WarL warned» counse! far 5!} ‘6 ‘G i“” ifendar: 0.?1 admission. (3‘s The appei!an€idefendané is aggréeved by the judgmemt and “(ram dated. 18 O2 13093 aassad by +5e msmct JJdce Raipw n CM O r Appeai NG5-A/2002, Whefe’cy amrmmg We judgmmv ard dear de Sinai; Bensh : Hon’bie Sim Diiip Raesaheb Qeshmukh. J. Sesomd Awaa? Na.223 of 29% AQwwwy $uresh Kumar AgrawaL aged about 54 é‘efamriam years, S/o Lat Rameshwar Lai Agrawai, Rio Mahalaxmi industries, Gurunanak Chowk, Raipur, Tahsii & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) velrsus §ewcm§wt§ S “i Suclha Dev: Sao aged 45 yea s ?iain’ziff o Amafam Sac RIO Samar: Chowk Goi Bazar, Raipur, Tah$ii & Disirwt Raipur {c.G.) ¥ thg (‘ndg cf "nn‘ Pm’wdum 1°68 §3§resent : Sh. Shfi Abhay Tiwara‘, counsei fm€he appe?iant. BPSharma, counsa! fer ihe paSSed in Civii Suit No.117-A/199Q ea GQ-Q$-2QO2 by the Vth Civil Judge CKassai, Raipw gfantmg eviction 0f the appeHantldefeadant Lmder Section 12{1)(f) and (k) of the Act, the appea¥ was dismixeci. {-2,} Brief facts we that the resgondent/pbintiff had med CM! Su§t Ne.11?—A/1889 for evictian of the appe!!ant/defendant —- tenant on gmund$ of clauses (k) and (f) of sub~5ectéon (1) of Section 12 of €he Act. Both éhe Courts be!cw have reccrded e concument fmdEng of fact em! the apeeilam/defeedam hed caused sebstaniie! damage to the accemmodatiee by uprooting mes and by e¥os§ng the door frem inside by constmcting a we}? and further that the respendentlpiaintiff :equired ’rke suit accommodation booa fide for non-residentiai purpose. The iowe? epeeiiaiie Court has aiso receided a Speemc iinsiing that two e‘eoes ecid by the respondent/piaintiff bx; saie-deed, Ex‘D‘i enti D-2 were vew emaii im size, i.e., 138 SqF’L and 193 SqF‘z. and eouid net mee‘i the remiiremem oi the piain’iiff under Section 12(1){f) a? the fiat; whereas {he suii accommodation was i200 SqFt. io area. Both the Coude beiow have aiso heid ehat ihe reepondem/piaintiff was not in ooeseesion of any other reasonabiy suitabie moo-iresideniiai aoeommodatioh of her own in hei’ occupation in the city or town concemed. {5): tn View of the retinquiehment of the right to evict the appeiiaht'detehctant on ground of Section 12(1){k) of the Act, this second app‘eai is heing eoneidered oniy on the ground of Section tzmn‘) of the Act: under which the decree tot eviction of the appettantidefendant was passed by the triai Qonrt and attirnted in fitst o appeai. (5} SM Abhay Tiwa{i, ¥eamed counse! for the appeilantldefendant has raised a pure question of {aw that in the absence af specifm p!ead§ngs'by the respondeht/plainhff as to how the two shogps sew by her v§de sa¥e-dsads Ex.D-1 ans} D2 were mt sui’iable €0r sarrymg on busihess in compafgson 30 the suh 5hop, ev§ction under Sectian 12mg} c§ the Ant couki moi be gamed. Besides this $039 ground, §eamed magma f0? tha appehahwefehdant wa5 unabie to Show ahy hewe¥$ity a tha findihg rammed. by boéh the Courts beiow that the gmuhd for ev§szioh cf the tenahti i.e., the appehant/defendant under Section 12{1)(f} of the Act was pmved. Shh Abhay Tiwari, ieamed counse¥ far the appeiiaht’defehcéaht a§so piarsed rehanse on Ramg'i Ehagala 31$. Kr§shmraa Kawas Baam and aaetmr, {1 $82) 1 Soc 433. (7) So far as the case 0f Ramii ghaqala (wpra) reiied on by learned. csuhs'e! f0! aha appehant’defendaht is concemed, in View of the yeiihquishment of tho right to evict the tenant undet Section 12mm of _ the Act by the ieamed counset tot the respondent/piaintitt at the very outeet; the eigest‘zen cf partty admitting o? parity reiecting the appeai deee mt afisei Theteferei the cage iew cited has he appiicatien to the present ceee. (a) Chaptei 15E ef the Act deais with contra! of eviction of tehahts. $eotion 12 of the Act imposes a restiiotion oh eviction of tenants ahd a emit couid be fiied in any Civii Court for eviction from any aooommodatioh oniy 0o one o¥ moie of the grounds mentioned in $eoiion 12m of the Act Section 12mg) of the Aot reads as under : fr. ”12. Reskictien on evictkm a? tenants. — (1} Notwithstanding anything to the contiary contained in any other iaw or contract, no suit shaii be iiied in any civi! Com: against a ’tenant for hi3 evictian from any accommodation except M one 0r mere of the foiiewing grounds aniy, (f) that the accommodaéion iet for acn- ¥esidentiai pumoses is {equired bonawe by the iandici’d for ths purpose of caniihuing er starting his bu$ines5 oa’ that 9f any of his magox sons m ummarried daughters if he is she ovimei' thereef or for am! person for whose benefit the aooommodaiion is heid and that the iandiord or such oerson has no oiher reasonabiy suitebie non—residen’riei accommodation of his own in his ocuoaiion in the city or town concerned:“ fgi \ J in order to seek evictioo of the tenant, the resoondentfpiaintiff was reouired to piead that ehe is the owner of ihe accommodation and requires ii oooa fide for the purpose oi coniinuing or Sieiing her business and toe? erre has no other reasonabiv suizabie accommodaiion of her own in her ocouoatioo irr the city or town concerned. A perusai of paragraph 4 oi ihe oieim cieariy shows the: the resporzclemipiaintii‘i had pieaded as under : mmeiy: {a} xxx xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx xxx (c) xxx xxx xxx xxx (d) mx xxx xxx xxx (e) xxx xxx xxx xxx “4/ That the piaintiff reqmres thev said premise$ benaMeiy far starting he! busineSs 0f catile feed and grain and she has no any other suitabie and vacant accommodaftion m her possessien in the City of Raigur fox’ ?.Ene same. Thei’efme the defendam is 1iabie to be e}ected aiso under Sedicn 12(1)(f} of MPAC. Act." (1Q) m paragraph 1, the respondent/p§aint§ff had aiso 9!eac‘;ed that she 1e the owner and iahd'ew‘ o e "Cho.medaiion concerned. h: th§s manner, the soie comenhee advanced by ieamee couhse§ m! the appeiiant/defendent is heme ‘zo outright rejection because the neeeeeary ingredients for seektng evtetton of the tenant on ground of Section 12(t)(§) of the Act wete speciflcetty pteaded by the respoedeht/piaintttf. The fact of avattebility of a suitebte accommodation it's the tocaitty or the hereof by the {espondent’ptaihtm emerging during examinatien of the apoeuaht/defeodaht for the met time wee thus purely a matter of evidence to be adduced ih rebutta! and which was not {equireo . to .ee pteaded ey the e ‘ h “'f The comurrent thdmg of feet recyded bv ooth If: the Courts beiow that the gmund for evtotion under Sectéon 12(t)(f) of the Act was proved is thus based on ptopet aeptectation of evidence, oret es we” as documentary. in my considered opinion therefote no eobstantiet question of taw atises fot detennteetion in thie appeai. The appeal ts accordingly dismissed at the stage o? admission. There shat; ! be no order as to costs. ”/Sd ‘ Dlllp Raosaheb Deshmuk udge 7 ,/ \i I * W\‘’ \ \\ "l.i < we Gopal h