Goutam Bhaduri, J.

Heard on admission.

This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2015, passed by the Additional District Judge, Mungeli, District-Mungeli, in Civil Appeal No. 90-A/2011. By such judgment and decree, the decree of ejectment, passed by the Civil Judge Class-1, Mungeli, in Civil Suit No. 65-A/2007, dated 29.03.2011 is affirmed.

2. The appeal is by the defendant/tenant against the concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts below.

3. Brief facts of this case are that a suit was filed by Narendra Singh Rajput and Ghanshyam Singh Rajput stating that subject suit shop was purchased by them by a registered sale deed dated 31.01.2006 from Shailendra and others. Thereafter, tire appellant was informed about such purchase by registered notice dated 17.05.2006. By such notice, the arrears of rent of the suit shop @ Rs. 1000/- per month was also demanded by the plaintiffs. It was further contended that even after such notice, defendant/tenant did not pay the arrears of rent and subsequently it was also contended that defendant had closed his shop and shifted his business elsewhere. It was further stated that suit house is 50 years old and in dilapidated condition, thereby the plaintiffs by demolishing the said shop wants to reconstruct the same in order to start their own business as they do not have any alternative accommodation in the city of Mungeli. It was further stated that the plaintiffs are running their medical shop in a rented premises, therefore, the suit house is required bona fidely. So the grounds were made of Sections 12(1) (a), 12(1) (d) and 12(1) (h) of the Accommodation Control Act.

4. The appellant defendant in reply came out with a defence that the plaintiffs have not purchased the said suit property and the suit property remained with Jurius Stifan and Kamlesh Stifan the seller. It was further contended that the defendant is in possession of the suit shop since last 30 to 35 years. It was further stated that since the erstwhile owner of the shop was in need of money, therefore, an agreement of sale was executed between them and periodically the payment was also made for such purchase. Further it was stated that despite the agreement was executed for sale of said shop in favour of the tenant/appellant, the suit shop has been sold to present/plaintiffs. It was further stated that a civil suit was filed bearing No. 55-A/2006 for specific performance. The written statement would show subsequent, amendment was incorporated stating that the suit shop do not form a part of the sale deed, which was purchased and claimed by the plaintiff/landlord. Therefore, it was alleged that suit shop has not been purchased by the plaintiffs for which ejectment was claimed.

5. After evaluating the pleadings and the evidence, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff/landlord under Sections 12(1)(a), 12 (1)(c) and 12(1)(h). The said judgment and decree was further assailed before the appellate Court, the first appellate Court too, affirmed the finding of the learned trial Court for arrears of rent bona fide need and denial of title thereby maintained the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court for ejectment. Hence, the instant second appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/tenant makes submission limited to the acquisition of ownership of shops only and not on other ground. The counsel submits that the suit shops were alleged to be purchased by sale deed dated 31.01.2006, which is marked as Ex.P/9 and perusal of the map of the said sale deed Ex.P/9 would show that shops were not included as a subject of sale. Learned counsel instantaneously went through the map to demonstrate the fact that towards north, it is reflected that open plot situates, which is numbered as 1 admeasuring 11.60 x 120 sq. mt. adjacent to the road and thereafter description in the map serial number marked as-2 shows that it is a house, thereafter, marking 3 would show that again open plot