- (1.)THIS is the tenant's second appeal. The suit for eviction of the appellant/defendant from the accommodation let out solely for residential purpose on the ground of bona fide requirement for residence as also for non-residence was decreed by the IInd Civil Judge Class-II, Raipur by judgment dated 17-12-1999 in Civil Suit No. 551-A/1998, which has been affirmed by the IInd Additional District judge, Raipur in Civil Appeal No. 3-A/2000 by judgment and decree dated 30-11-2000.
(2.)IT is not disputed that the suit accommodation situated in Chirhuldih, Ward No. 35 at Amapara, raipur was let out to the appellant/defendant solely for residential purpose. Respondent No. 1 is the mother of respondents No. 2 and 3. It was pleaded by them that they were the owners of the suit accommodation, which was let out to the appellant/defendant at a rent of Rs. 400/- per month for residential purposes. In paragraph 6 of the plaint, it was averred by the respondents/plaintiffs as under:. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). .
(3.)THE appellant/defendant did not specifically deny that the plaintiffs were the owner of the suit accommodation or the fact of non-availability of alternative accommodation pleaded by the respondents/plaintiffs. It was denied that the respondents/plaintiffs required the suit accommodation bona fide for the residence as also for starting business of respondent No. 3.
;