CHANDRASHEKHER MALHOTRA Vs. PRAVIN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law in this second appeal preferred by the defendant questioning the judgment and decree dated 13­5­2019 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Durg in Civil Appeal No.55­A/2016 by which the first appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 3­8­2016 passed by the 1st Civil Judge, Class­II, Durg in Civil Suit No.15­A/ 2010, decreeing the suit and directing eviction of the defendant from the suit accommodation.

(2.) Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant, would submit that both the Courts below are absolutely unjustified in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs by not holding that the plaintiffs have reasonably alternative suit accommodation in their possession which they have received on 31­3­2009 and on further dates as such, the finding recorded by the two Courts below that the plaintiffs have no reasonably alternative suit accommodation {second limb of Section 12(1)(f) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act of 1961')} is perverse and therefore the appeal deserves to be admitted for hearing by formulating substantial question of law for determination.

(3.) The respondents herein/plaintiffs filed suit for eviction basically on the ground enumerated in Section 12(1)(f) of the Act of 1961 stating inter alia that the suit shops owned by the plaintiffs are situated at Jawahar Chowk, Durg (described in map as l] n] Q] d; the original tenant was Dr. Indrasen Malhotra on rent at the rate of ? 625/­ per month; the suit accommodation is bona fidely required for the bona fide use of plaintiff No.2 Sunil for opening a ready­ made garment shop in the suit shop and in the adjacent vacant shop (earlier tenant Sunderlal Tamrakar) after removal of partition wall; plaintiff No.3 Anil has started the business of Provisional and Departmental Store in other three shops, out of which possession of one shop has been received on 31­3­ 2009; and plaintiff No.3 is running business in the name of Surana Traders in those vacant shops.