Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This is defendant's second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC') challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 13/08/2013 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon in Civil Appeal No. 68-A/2012, affirming the judgment and decree dated 23/08/2012 passed by First Civil Judge, Class-II, Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit No. 09-A/2011. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are as under:

1.1. The plaintiffs' have instituted a suit, claiming eviction of defendant on the ground enumerated under Section 12(1) (a) and (e) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act of 1961'). It was pleaded that the defendant is occupying the suit house at the monthly rent of ` 200 and, despite service of demand-cum-quit notice, has neither paid the entire arrears of rent, nor has handed over its vacant possession to them. It is further pleaded further that, the plaintiff requires the suit house bonafidely for the residence of her grandson, namely-Trigun Sadani and, for which, suitable residential accommodation is not available in the city of Rajnandgaon.

1.2. The defendant contested the plaintiffs suit stating inter-alia that he has taken the suit house from his predecessor-in-interest, namely Ganga Ram Chandak at the monthly rent of ` 125 and denied that the suit house requires bonafidely by the plaintiffs. It was further pleaded that an agreement to sale has been executed by one Laxman Sadani, son-in-law of the plaintiff No. 1 and, his son-Trigun Sadani in his favour at the rate of ` 300 per sq. ft. and has paid a sum of Rs.78,400 under the said agreement and disputed the grounds raised in the plaint and prayed that suit be dismissed with cost.

1.3. The trial Court, by its judgment and decree dated 23/08/2012 held that:

(a) The monthly rent of the suit house is at Rs.200.

(b) The plaintiffs requires the suit house bonafidely for the residence of her daughter's son-Trigun Sadani and the defendant is precluded to avail his defence under Section 12 of the Act of 1961, as his defence was struck off under Section 13(6) of the Act of 1961.

(c) The defendant has failed in deposit the arrears rent despite demand-cum-quit notice, dated 10/10/2008; and, in consequence, decreed the suit on the ground under Section 12(1)(a) and (e) of the Act of 1961.

1.4. Feeling dissatisfied against that defendant has filed first appeal under Section 96 of CPC, challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court. First Appellate Court, by its impugned judgment and decree, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court, however, additionally decreed granted decree under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act of 1961.

2. Mr. Sanjay Shyam Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the defendant/tenant would submit that both the Courts below has fallen into error by granting a decree under Section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(e) of the Act of 1961, as dispute with regard to the rent as per provisions prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act of 1961, was not decided by the two Court below particularly by the trial Court and consequently, the defence under Section 13(6) of the Act of 1961 could not have struck out by the trial Court. Mr. Agrawal would further submit that the need of grandson-Trigun Sadani does not come within the purview of family member, as defined in Section 2(e) of the Act of 1961, and would finally submit that granting of decree under 12(1) (a) and 12(1) (e) of Act of 1961, and order dated 15/07/2011 striking out defence under Section 13(6) of the Act of 1961, without deciding the dispute with regard to the rate of rent, is illegal and submits that following two substantial questions of law arise for determination:

(i) Whether the Courts below erred in striking out the defence of the defendant under Section 13(6) of the Act, without determining the dispute of rate under Section 13(2) of the Act and thereby granting a dec