ORDER :

1. This appeal has been preferred by the Defendant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’) questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2009 passed by the District Judge, Bastar, Place Jagdalpur in Civil Appeal No. 11-A/2008, whereby, the lower appellate Court, while affirming the judgment and decree dated 02.09.2008 passed by First Civil Judge, Class I, Jagdalpur in Civil Suit No. 1A/2005 has dismissed the defendant's appeal. The parties to this appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their description in the trial Court.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff-Ramchandra Rath instituted a suit claiming decree for eviction of the defendant-P. Reddeyya on the grounds enumerated under Section 12(1)(e) and (g) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act 1961’) by submitting inter-alia that the defendant was put in possession of the suit house situated at Rajendra Nagar, Jagdalpur as described in red colour marked as “ABCD” in plaint Schedule “A” at the monthly rent of Rs. 500/- which was enhanced subsequently to the tune of Rs. 800/- per month in the year 2000. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendant has stopped paying rent to him since October, 2001 and has failed to deposit the arrears of rent of Rs. 19,200/- despite requests being made in this regard. Further contention of the plaintiff is that the suit house is in dilapidated condition and not safe for human habitation and pleaded further that it requires bonafidely for residential purposes of his family members and suitable and alternative accommodation for the said purpose is not available to him in the concerned city.

3. While contesting the aforesaid claim, it is pleaded by the defendant that the condition of the suit house is neither dilapidated as alleged by the plaintiff nor was it required bonafidely by him as he is trying to alienate the same to someone else. The claim is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the parties, arrived at a conclusion that the defendant, who is occupying the suit house at monthly rent of Rs. 800/- has failed to deposit the same since October, 2001 and the plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to get the arrears of rent of Rs. 19,200/-. It held further, while considering the notice dated 03.02.2007 (Ex.P.10) issued by the Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur to the plaintiff, that the condition of the suit house is dilapidated and is unsafe for human habitation and held further that it requires bonafidely by the plaintiff for the residential purposes of his family members. In consequence, decreed the claim on the grounds under Section 12(1)(e) and (g) of the Act, 1961.

5. Being aggrieved, the defendant has preferred an appeal and the lower appellate Court, while meeting its reasonings only with regard to some of the issues, like Issue Nos. 3 and 7 to 9 framed by the trial Court, has affirmed the decree for eviction on the ground under Section 12(1)(e) and (g) of the Act, 1961. This is the order which has been questioned by way of this appeal and the appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the court below was justified in not considering the submissions made by the appellant in respect of the contentions pertaining to 12(1)(e) and (g) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961?”

6. According to learned counsel for the Appellant/defendant, the finding of the lower appellate Court affirming the decree for eviction on the grounds enumerated under Section 12(1)(e) and (g) of the Act, 1961 even without meeting its reasonings with regard to the Issues No. 2, 4 and 5 framed by the trial Court, is apparently contrary to law. It is contended further that entire judgment and decree of the trial Court was under challenge in appeal, therefore, it was the bounden duty of the Court below to decide the app