Ram Prasanna Sharma, J. - (1.) This appeal is preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment/decree dated 28- 1-2006 passed by 10th Additional District Judge (FTC) Raipur (CG) in Civil Appeal No. 40-A of 2004 wherein the said court passed decree in favour of respondents for shop in question reversing the judgment and decree passed by the XI th Civil Judge, Class 1 Raipur in Civil Suit No. 192-A/2002 dated 17-9- 2003.
(2.) The original respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent pleading inter alia that he is the owner and landlord of the suit accommodation and the original plaintiff is tenant for monthly rent of Rs.250/-. The First Appellate Court decreed the suit on the ground of bona fide need under Section 12(1)(f) of the MP/CG Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act,1961") and for denial of the landlord title under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act.1961. This appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law. I) Whether the Lower Appellate Court was not justified in passing a decree for eviction under Section 12(1)(c) of the MP/CG Accommodation Control Act, 1961?. ii) Whether the Lower Appellate Court erred in law in passing a decree under Section 12 (1)(f) of the MP (CG) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 without recording a finding that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit premises and was having an authority of law to maintain a claim under Section 12(1)(f) of the said Act?.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants would submit as under: I) Original respondent was not owner of the suit accommodation and it is the property of the grand-mother, therefore, bona fide need for his own business has not been established. ii) The respondent is miserably failed to establish his title over the suit accommodation which is sine qua non for granting a decree under Section 12(1)(f) of the Act, 1961. Respondent has more reasonable suitable accommodation for his business, therefore, finding of the trial Court is not liable to be sustained. iii) Denial of respondent title is nothing but challenged to derivative title of the respondent. As per version of original appellant the respondent's grand-mother is title holder of the suit accommodation. Reliance has been placed in the matter of Sheela and others vs. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash, reported in JT 2002 (2) SC 536. ;