P. Sam Koshy, J.

1. This is the defendant's Second Appeal. By way of the instant Second Appeal the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2001 passed by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Appeal No. 33-A of 2001. By way of the said impugned judgment dated 13.12.2001 the first appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.01.1999 passed in Civil Suit No. 40-A of 1995 by the Seventh Civil Judge Class-II, Raipur. The facts leading to the instant Second Appeal is that the Suit premises in the instant Second Appeal is part of the premises No. 5/66, M.G. Road, Raipur. The father of the present appellant was the tenant of the Suit premises since 1965-66. Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for ejectment of the appellant from the suit premises for bona fide need. From the plaint averment it is evidently clear that the plaintiff had very specifically and in categorical terms said that the plaintiff do not have any other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation of his own for starting a separate business and therefore the suit premises was bonafidely required. Further, from the plaint averment it is specifically clear that the entire suit preferred by the plaintiff was mainly invoking the provisions of Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 now C.G. Accommodation Control Act (for short the Act of 1961).

2. The appellant/defendant on receipt of the notice immediately entering appearance before the trial court submitted his written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff apart from the other objections in respect of the maintainability of the suit etc. The defendant had specifically denied the contention of the plaintiff of not having alternative accommodation. The trial Court after conclusion of the pleadings and recording of the evidence vide its judgment dated 30.01.1999 allowed the suit of the plaintiff and passed a decree of eviction against the appellant.

3. The appellant by way of the first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC vide Civil Appeal No. 33-A of 2001 challenged the said judgment and decree. The first appellate Court also after considering the submissions of both the parties vide its impugned judgment and order dated 13.12.2001 dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant leading to the filing of the instant Second Appeal.

4. The instant Second Appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 24.02.2012 on which date the appeal was admitted on the sole substantial question of law i.e. "Whether the findings of both the Courts below regarding bonafide need of landlord is perverse as the same is recorded without considering the effect and import of document Ex.D-1 and the fact that alternative accommodation though available was not pleaded by the landlord?"

5. The instant Second Appeal was filed by the appellant in the year 2002 i.e. on 22.01.2002. However, pending the Second Appeal for final hearing before this Court the State of Chhattisgarh vide Act No. 19 of 2012 enacted a new law known as Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 which became applicable in the state of Chhattisgarh w.e.f. 06.11.2012. According to the counsel for the respondent in view of the new Act the earlier Act stood repealed and as per the provisions of the new Act the instant appeal pending before this Court is no longer maintainable and it deserves to be dismissed.

6. Before considering the case on merits, this Court first proceeds to decide this preliminary objection put-forth by Shri Harish Chandra Shukla counsel for the respondent, as regards the maintainability of the Second Appeal.

7. The contention of Shri Shukla counsel for the respondent was that subsequent to the enactment of the new law by the State of Chhattisgarh known as 'Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act 2001 (for short 'Act of 2011') (Act No. 19 of 2012)' which came into force with effect from 06.11.2012 i.e. the date on which it was published in the Gazette of the State Government, the present Second Ap