JUDGMENT

Sanjay K Agrawal, J. - This second appeal preferred by the appellants/Lrs. of plaintiff was admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law :-

"Whether learned lower appellate Court was justified in reversing the decree by holding that the plaintiff failed to prove his title ?"

(For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred hereinafter as per their status before the trial Court.)

2. Original plaintiff Ashok Kumar Gupta (who died during the pendency of this second appeal) filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the defendant stating inter alia that he and his wife purchased the land bearing Khasra No. 7848/1 from one Shanti Bai by registered sale deed dated 17/02/1998 (Ex. P/1) and got their names recorded in the revenue records. Thereafter, they constructed suit shop on the said land and let it out to the defendant for monthly rent of Rs. 800/-. Due to his bona fide need, plaintiff required the suit shop and therefore, he served Ex. P/6 upon the defendant to vacate the suit shop but defendant did not vacate the suit shop and failed to pay the rent from August, 1995 to March, 1997 which led to the filing of the suit by the plaintiff.

3. Defendant filed his written statement and set up a plea that one Soven Rai is the original owner of the suit shop at present who is running medical shop in the said suit shop and the valid license is also in his name and since, Soven Rai is the necessary party who ought to have been impleaded as a party/defendant in the suit, therefore, plaintiff's suit deserves to be dismissed. He further stated that the land on which the suit shop is built, is a najul land in which plaintiff has no right and title and moreover, since plaintiff's wife Neelam Gupta jointly purchased the land along with the plaintiff from Shanti Bai, therefore, she should also have been impleaded as a party to the suit.

4. Learned trial Court framed as many as 15 issues and upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record decreed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 12/07/2005 holding that plaintiff and his wife purchased land bearing Khasra No. 7848/1 from Shanti Bai on 17/02/1998 vide Ex. P/1 and got their names recorded in the revenue records and thereafter, they constructed the suit shop on the said land which was let out to the defendant by him. The trial Court further held that plaintiff has established the relationship of landlord-tenant between him and the defendant and due to his bona fide need he requires the suit shop, thereby, granting decree for eviction and payment of arrears of rent in his favour.

5. On appeal being preferred by the defendant under Section 96 of the CPC, learned first appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Court solely on the ground that plaintiff has failed to prove title and establish the relationship of landlord/tenant between him and defedant and vide its judgment and decree dated 08/05/2008 allowed the appeal of the defendant against which this second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/Lrs. of plaintiff in which substantial question of law has been formulated and incorporated in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

6. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants/LRs. of plaintiff would submit that the first appellate Court unnecessarily interfered with the judgment and decree of the trial Court on the ground that plaintiff has failed to prove his ownership over the suit shop under Section 12(1)(f) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 ("the Act of 1961" for short), he is required to prima facie prove his title over the suit shop. The first appellate Court has ignored the overwhelming evidence in shape of Ex. P/1 and admission of the defendant, therefore, the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court deserves to be set aside. He further relies upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Sheela and Ors. v. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash, 2002 AIR(SC) 1264 an