0) IN THE HON'BLE HLGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Second Apoeal No. ^\^ /2011 @Si APPELLANT Defendant No.2 /Mohd. Farid S/o Abdul Gaffar, aged about 40 years, R/o Bhariyan £^^ Pla<Q?fiff ./ Defendant No. 1 Mohalla, Purana Gaurela, P.S. & Tahsil Pendraroad, District Bilaspur (C.G.). VERSUS Jaibunnisha wd/o Abdul Jabbar, aged about 63 years, R/o Bhariyan Mohalla, Purana Gaurela, P.S. & Tahsil Pendra Road, District Bilaspur(C.G.). 2. Ashuf Ali S/o Hazaz Ali @ Chhamman Miya, aged about 55 years, R/o Bhariyan Mohalla, Purana Gaurela, P.S. & Tahsil Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 5- Parvin Bano D/o Mohd. Farid, aged about 30 years, R/o Bhariyan Mohalla, Purana Gaurela, P.S. & Tahsil Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.). w^" SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDRUE Defendant No. 3 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Second Appeal No.48 of 2011 APPELLANT: Defendant No.2 RESPONDENTS: Plaintiff Mohd. Farid -Versus- Jaibunnisha & others Present Shri Dheerendra Mishra, counsel for the appellant. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra. J. ORALJUDGMENT (6-7-2011) 1. Heard. 2. This is an appeal under Section 100 ofthe CPC filed by defendant No.2 in the jsuit against whom the plaintiff preferred theinstant suit for delivery of possession. 3. According to the plaintiff, defendant No.1 Asuf Ali, was tenant, however, the said Asuf Ali was not in possession and on enquiry, it was found that defendant No.2/appellant has forcibly dispo-sessed the tenant and has illegally occupied the suit premises without there being any right, title or authority to remain in possession. 4. The triat Court found that defendant No.1 is the tenant, however, it was observed by the trial Court that no relief has been claimed against defendant No.2 for recovery of possession under the CG Accommodation ControlAct, 1961 (for short'the Act'). 5. The Appeltate Court has allowed the first appeal preferred by the ptaintiff and has decreed the suit against the present appellant. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is residing in the house in his own authority as he is the owner thereof, therefore, the First Appellate Court has committed an error in granting decree against him. l.<1 1.^ ^! ^ ^;^f %^^^ i^,,.^^ e) 7. In para-10 of the impugned judgment, the First Appellate Court has observed that Ex.-P/4 to Ex.-P/S are the documents filed by the plaintiff to prove her ownership on the suit land. The aforesaid documents are in the nature of entries in the name of the plaintiff in the record of the Municipality concerning the payment of property tax and other dues. It has also been found by the Appellate Court that Ex.-D/1, relied by the appellant, is captioned as Godnama Rasid, however, thedocument, in fact, is a gift deed and not a deed of adoption. It has also been found that document Ex.-D/2 is a deed of relinquishment and is not registered. Thus, both the documents have been found to be without any legal effect to confer valid title on the appellant. 8. The trial Court dismissed the suit after holding that the relief against the present appellant has not been claimed under the Accommodation Control Act, however, on reading ofthe plaint, it would appear that from the very beginning it was the case of the plaintiff that the appellant is trespasser on the suit house and is illegally occupying thesame. A relieffor possession has been sought against the present appellant, not as a tenant but as a trespasser having no authority to occupy the premises. Therefore, the trial Court committed an error in dismissing the suit and the First Appellate Court has rightly decreed the suit. 9. No substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal. The instant appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Barve