IN THB HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR Second Appeal No s'{^\ of2004 Sliir':fslfi^tSH <:)^.)^jslli?-<*&:y'::5i>" ^PPELLANT: ^(Plamtifi) ^ESPONDENTS: (Defeadaats) <^€.A •<7'.!^: AW-^ ;^6&^y' ^s/j^/y w^y /sy/y /^' .•• .<^/ </J/ • ^ Narayaa Prasad, Son of Late Shri Jaiaarayaa Agarwal, Aged about 53 years, Resident of Sakti, TehsU Salrti, District Jaajgir-Cham^pa (C.G.) Versus •3.. 5. ^' Mst. Narayaa Devi, Widow of Late Raiabhagat Agarwal, aged about 72 years. Ramavtar, Son of Late Rambhagat Agarwal, aged about 49 years. Rajaram, son of Late Rambhagat Agarwal, aged about 39 yeaiTSt Trilokuiath, soa^ 6f Late Ranibh^at Aganval, aged about 35 years. Chandaa, son of Late Rambhagat Agarwal, aged about 24 years. Ku. Puja, daugKter of Late Rambhagat Agarwal, aged about 18 vears. ^ Mst. Sharda Devi, Widow of Late Pavaa Kumar Agarwal, aged about 44 years. 8y Yogesh, son pf Late Pavan Kuinar Agarwal, aged about 17 years. .9. Ravi, son. of Late Pavaa Kumar Agarwal, aged about 15 years. 1 s|.| ® 10. </ Mauish, son of Late Pavan Kumar Agarwal, aged about 14 years. Sr. No.8 to 10 arc Tninors fhrough their natural guardiati inother Mst. Sharda Devi, Widow of Late Pavan Kumar Agarwal,g((resident of Waid No.12, Sakti, Station Road, Tehsil Sakti, District Jaiijgir-Champa (C.G.). 11. i ! 1 12. 13. ^ 14. 15. Sint. Meera, wife of Goviad Aganval, aged about 30 years, resident of Gharghoda, Presenfly residing at LIG-31, Lochaa Nagar, Raigarh. Snit. Sulochan, wife of Shri RajkuamrAgarwal, aged about 28 years, resident of i Behind Laxmi Talkies iBilaspur Fjnn Jagdish Prasad Rajkumar. Sint. Preina Devi Choubey @ Preiu Lata, wife of Oinprakash Agarwal, aged about 43 years, resident of K-12, Kraati Nagar, Behiad Haniimnn Maadir, Bilaspur, Firm.- Ramavter Textiles. Smt. Kantadevi, wife of Ashok Kumar Agarwal, agsS. about 32 years, resideut of Sapos, Tehsil Dabra, Piesenfly residing at MIG-11, Mukut Nagar, Raigarh (C.G.). Sint. Sharda Devi, wife of Mangturam Agarwal, aged about 32 years, resident of ShTOrmiarayaa,| Tehsil Pamgarh, \ District Jaajgir-Chaiapa, Fimi- Shaiikar Vashtralaya, Bonibay Market- Shivruiarayaa (C.G.). w^" SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION_100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCECDURE, 1908 .!!..-.(_ J_. -s^ i ^^^a^; inde gench:- 1-fan'ble Siri Justice Wjrendra Mjshra yai osw ant by Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate. JU i i i Heard on admission The appeiiant has prefeired thls second appeai as he is aggrieved by the judgement and decrse dated 16.08.2004 passed by Additional District Judge, »akti in Civil Appeai No. 18-A/'2003 arising out of judgment dated 15.09.2003 passed by Civil Judge, Class-t, Sahti in Civil Suit No. 245-A/2002 and by which the learned flrst Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal upholding the order of dismissai passed by the triat Court. (Parties .herainafter shall be referred to as per their description in the triai Court.) This instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff on the follov/ing substantial question of !aw; (i) Whether both the Courts below were justified in refusing the decree of eviction under Section 12(1)(c) ofthe Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act a.nd, (ii) Whether both the Courts below wero justified in holding that the appeilant/plaintiff has failed to prove his bonafide need to the- disputed property. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court was that he is the owner of the suit premises and the defendants are his tenants on a monthiy rent of ^ c'- Rs. 400;- and the plaintiff rsquires the suit premises for the purpose of business of his sons. He further submits that the defendants have not oaid rent for ths iast 16 month3 and they have construeted their own house and even then, they are not vacating the disputed premises. defendants in their written statement denied the averments of the plaint and stated that the plaintiff is not the oswner of the suit premises and it was taken by the defendants from one Shri Mansha Ram for yeariy rent of Rs.180/- in the year 1947. It v»'as further pleaded by the defendants that the piaintiff has suitable residentia! and non-residertial accommodation in Shakti town and the instant suit has been filed by suppressing the materiat facts and the piaintiff does not require the suit prsmises bonafideiy. Learned trlal Court dlsmlssed the sult by holdlng . at the deTendants are the tenant of the suit premises for the yearly rent of Rs. 180.'- and they have paid all the rents payable and that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit premises is required bonafideiy for the residential or businsss purposes of his sons and he does not hav®reasonabiy suitable accommodation in Sakti fown for the above purDose. The appeal af ths piaintiff was also dismissed by the first AppeitaSe Court by the impugned judgement and decree by recording a finding that the Court below has not committed any illegality by arriving to a conclusion thal the yearly rent was fixed at Rs. 180/- which is established bv the oral and documentan,' svldence adduced by the defendants v^hereas the piaintiff has not led any evia'ence to estabfish that the monthly renf was Rs.400.''-. The first Appeliate Court has also arrived to the conclusion that the plaintiff does not require the suit accommodation for bonafide necessity of residence or busin&ss of his sons as 'the piaintiff has deliberately suppressed the fact that he is possessed ofvarious houses in Sakti which are suitable for the above purpose .and also that P.W.1 Narayan has admltted In para-14 of his statement recorded before the Court that the house recorded in the name of his mother, is In possession or his son Vimal Kumar. The Court belovi/ has aiso arrived to She conciusion that the piaintiff has deiiberately suppressed the fact the he is the owner of tne house known as Dharmshala in which there are certain shops in the ownership ofthe ptaintiff by virtue of Ex.D.-'9 and ftsrther that bn the basis of the statement of Vima! Kumar that the suit premlses is required for his younger brother Rajesh Kumar, who is unempioyed, in futurs when he wouid be marrisd. (^ Soth the Courts below have rejected the contention of the plalntiff of bonafide necessity on She ground that the plaintlff has Talted to prove as to vi'hat business his sons are proposing to do for which the sult accommodation in question is rsquired and thus, on the basis of objective analysis of the evidence on record, learned both the Courts beiow have arrived to the concurrent findings that the plaintiff has failed to establish that he requires the suit premises for residentiai purposes of his sons .or for business purposes of his sons. The bonafide need of the plalntlff has further doubted that the p.Saintlff has the fact that he has further aiternative accommodation available in Sakti. learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has ptaced his reliance on the Judgment passed in the matter of Kunar and Vs. and reoorted in /ra?03) 1 SCC. 482 and submits thai once th( tandiord proves his bonafides to the objective satlsfaction of the court of facts, the choice of accommodation v/hich wouta' satisfy his requirement should bs left to iandlord's subjective choice, court cannot impose its own choice. Learned counsst r^lvinQ on th^ iuda©ni©ntof M.P.-Hiah Court In ths mattQrs of Sb©©Js Vs. reported in 1997(1) MPLJ, 224. submits that a landiord cannot be densed from occupylng his own property when he needs the same bonafidely as has been held in the judgement under referenci and as already held in the foregoing paragraphs. Hovi/ever, tn the Tacts and circumstances of the case, the above reference of learned counsel for the appe!lant/p!aintiff is of no help to the plaintiff as both the Courts below have arrived to a concurrent finding whereby the very bonafide need of the plaintiff that he requires the suit accommodation for residentiai or bu3ines3 purpoees of his sons has been disbelieved by the Courts of facts. The plaintiff has deliberately suppressed the availability of the alternattiva accommodatlon whlch is evident from the evidence adduced by the plaintiff.l In Shis case a!so it has been held Shat the choice of the landlord must be reasonable and not whimsical. The above concurrent finding of facts is based on objective anaiysis of the matertai availabie on record and the same are the questiohs of faots, which is not open for ohalienge in the seoond appaal. The other submission of learned counsel for the appeilant/plaintrff is that the defendants h-ave denied the ownership of the plaintiff and therefore, learned ^ both tha Courts below ought to have passed a decree of evietion under Section 12(1)(o) of Chhattisgarh Acoommodation Control Act. However. both the Courts below have arrived to the conclusion on the basis of matenai availabie on record and pleadings of both the parties that the dafendants have acknovi/ledged the ownership of the ancestors of the plaintiff namely Mansharam and they have further submitted that they were paying the rent to Mansharam and thereafter the rent was being paid to father oftha plaintiff nameiy Jai Narayan at the rate. of Rs. 1 80/- per annum. So in the abow circumstances, it cannot be said that the defendants have denied the title of the piaintiff over the suit property and thsrefore a decree of eviction under Section L-~12(1)(c) ofthe Act, couid not be passed against them. Thus, the admlssion of tfie defendants regardlng the ownershlp of the father of the plaintiff. can not be construed that the defendants have done sornething which is likeiy affect adverseiy and substantially the interest of the landiord which is a condition precedent for passing a deoree under Section 12Cf)(c)oftheAet. The essentia! requirement for claiming a dscree under Section 12(1)(e) and (f) of the Act are that there must be a bonafide requiremsnt of the accommodation for the landlord or other persons mentioned in the ciause and the landlord should not have any other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation of his own for the above purpose. Both the Courts betow after discussing the evidence and pieadings of the parties, held that the pialntiffhas deliberately suppressed the availability of the aliernative accommodation with him, uismfesed the appeal ofthe appeilanyplaintiff. After consldertng the facts and clrcumstances of the case and materla! ivaiiabte on record, ! am of the opinion Shat there is no infirmity in the above concurrent findings of both the Courts beiov/ and there Is no substantiai question of lavrf involved for adjudication of this appeai and the appeal is devoid of any merit. Accordingly, the instant second appeal desenes to be dismissed and it'is dismissed. However, in the abovs circumstances, there shail be no order as to cosfs. Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge is ^^L