Point of Law: Control of Eviction of Tenants - Restriction on eviction of tenants - Bonafide - First appellate Court is absolutely unjustified in setting aside decree of eviction granted by trial Court under Section 12(1)(f) of Act of 1961 in favour of plaintiff

JUDGMENT :

1. This second appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff was admitted for hearing on 09/02/2021 by formulating the following substantial question of law :

“Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court passed under Section 12(1)(f) of the Accommodation Control Act, 1961 by recording a finding perverse to the record ?”

[The parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their status given and ranking shown before the trial Court.]

2. Plaintiff, being the owner and landlord of suit shop situated at Agrasen Chowk, Bilaspur admeasuring 9 x 22 sq. ft., let out the suit shop to the defendant for monthly rent of Rs. 930/for the purpose of godown for which the defendant was paying rent from December, 2005. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that the suit shop is required for his and his son's bona fide need for the purpose of carrying out their business and they have no alternative accommodation in the township of Bilaspur to fulfill their need and at present plaintiff is carrying out his business of selling vegetables from a temporary shop in front of his house which is being dismantled from time to time by the Municipal Corporation, as such, suit shop is required under Section 12(1)(f) of Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter, the Act of 1961) therefore, notice was served to the defendant on 21/12/2006, but despite service of said notice, defendant has not vacated the suit shop, as such, decree for eviction be granted in favour of the plaintiff.

3. Resisting the suit, defendant filed his written statement and admitted the fact of tenancy over the suit shop on rent of Rs. 930/per month. He also admitted that plaintiff has been carrying out his business of selling vegetables from a shop in front of his house for the last 20 years, as such, he has no bona fide need for the suit shop and the instant suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, vide judgment and decree dated 02/01/2009, decreed the suit holding that defendant is tenant of plaintiff over the suit shop on monthly rent of Rs. 930/and the suit shop is required for the bona fide need of plaintiff and his son and they have no alternative accommodation in the township of Bilaspur to fulfill their need, as such, he is entitled for decree for eviction. On appeal being preferred, learned first appellate Court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 27/01/2011, though held that defendant is tenant of plaintiff but further held that plaintiff has another suitable accommodation in his possession in the township of Bilaspur and as such, reversed the decree passed by the trial Court against which this second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff in which substantial question of law has been framed and set out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

5. Mr. B.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, would submit that the first appellate Court has gravely erred in holding that plaintiff has alternative suitable accommodation in the township of Bilaspur as pursuant to the decree of eviction passed in Civil Suit No. 13A/2008 on 15/07/2008 plaintiff has come in possession of one shop vacated by Narvinder Singh whereas in the written statement, there is no such pleading of the civil suit and even in his statement before the trial Court, defendant has clearly admitted in paragraph 20 that plaintiff has not received the vacant possession of the shop pursuant to the decree of eviction, as such, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court is liable to be set aside.

6. None appeared for respondent though served.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, considered his submission and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

8. Learned trial Court has clearly held that defendant is the tenant of plaintiff over the suit shop on monthly rent of Rs.