1. This is defendant's second appeal preferred under Section 100 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code of 1908 in short) against the judgment and decree dated 06.01.2016 passed by the District Judge, Raipur in Civil Appeal No. 41/2014, by which, the lower appellate Court while affirming the judgment and decree dated 03.03.2014 passed by the 8th Civil Judge, Class-2, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 139-A/2011 has dismissed the appeal.

2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the plaintiff Abdul Gaffar Khan instituted a suit for eviction in respect of the property situated at Swami Vivekanand Ward at Malviya Nagar, admeasuring 12 ft. x 10 ft = 120 sq.ft. (henceforth 'suit shop'). It is pleaded that the suit shop was let out to the defendant for running the betel shop (Paan shop) at a monthly rent of Rs. 800/-. It is pleaded further that rent was due from February 2010 and was not deposited upto the month of November 2010 despite repeated requests being made by him. A demand notice was, therefore, issued to him on 23.11.2010 by terminating the tenancy of the suit shop w.e.f. 31.12.2010 requiring vacant possession of the suit shop. After receiving the alleged demand-cum-quit notice, the defendant has paid the rent only upto December, 2010, however, has failed to handover the vacant possession of the suit shop to the plaintiff, therefore, his position has become a trespasser with effect from 01.01.2011 and liable to pay damages to the tune of Rs.100/- per day in lieu of utilizing the suit shop un-authorisedly.

3. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff requires the suit shop bona fidely for his son Aleem for carrying out cycle business along with adjacent shop, which is in occupation of another tenant Manoharlal as he is unemployed and, for the said purpose alternative and suitable accommodation is not available to him in the city of Raipur. It is pleaded further that as the defendant did not vacate the suit shop despite issuance of alleged demand-cum-quit notice dated 23.11.2010, therefore, the plaintiff has been constrained in filing the suit for eviction of the defendant on the ground enumerated under Section 12(1)(f) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961').

4. While admitting the ownership of the plaintiff, the defendant has contested the suit on the ground that the plaintiff, without establishing his ownership, is not competent to file the suit for eviction and denied further that the suit shop is required bona fidely by the plaintiff for the alleged need of his son as he is not in employment. It is pleaded further that alternative and suitable accommodations in the city of Raipur are available to the plaintiff and the suit has been filed mala fidely just for increasting the rent of the suit shop, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

5. In support, the plaintiff has examined his sons Abdul Shakeel and Abdul Aleem as plaintiff's witnesses No.1 and No.2 by producing documentary evidence, like Property Tax Receipts (Ex.P.2 & Ex.P.3), notice, postal receipts etc., while the defendant has examined as many as two witnesses including himself in support of his defence.

6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the parties and that by examining the documentary evidence, particularly, Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3, i.e., the Property Tax Receipts, vis-a-vis, the admission of the defendant, has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit shop and requires the same bona fidely for carrying out the Cycle Rickshaw spare parts business for his son and alternative and suitable accommodation for the said purpose is not available to him in the city of Raipur. It held further that the plaintiff's son Aleem is not in employment and, therefore, the need of the plaintiff for his son's alleged business is genuine. In consequence, the trial Court has decreed the suit on the ground enumerated under Section 12(1)(f) of the