2025:CGHC:55976 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Digitally signed INDRAJEET by INDRAJEET SAHU SAHU Date: 2026.01.06

10:53:11 +0530 SA No. 294 of 2006

1 - Shiv Prasad Tiwari (Died Through LRs)

1.a - Abhishekh Tiwari S/o Late Shri Shiv Prasad Tiwari Aged About 48 Years R/o Kelkar Para Nahar Para Beside Shiv Mandir Indira Gandhi Ward Raipur (C.G)

1.b - Abhinav Tiwari S/o Late Shri Shiv Prasad Tiwari Aged About 43 Years R/o Kelkar Para Nahar Para Beside Shiv Mandir Indira Gandhi Ward Raipur (C.G)

1.c - Ankur Tiwari S/o Late Shiv Prasad Tiwari Aged About 39 Years R/o Kelkar Para Nahar Para Beside Shiv Mandir Indira Gandhi Ward Raipur (C.G)

... Appellants versus

1 - Suresh Kumar Vig, S/o Late Shriram Vig, Vig Medical Stores, Station Road Raipur (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Appellants : Shri Amrito Das and Shri Yashraj Verma, Advocates.

For Respondent : Ms. Siddhi Tiwari on behalf of Shri Arvind Dubey, Advocate.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board

17.11.2025

1. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the appellant against the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.03.2006 passed by the 9^th Additional District Judge, Raipur, in Civil Appeal No.8-A/2005 whereby the First Appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated

23.07.2003 passed by 3^rd Additional Civil Judge Class-I Raipur in Civil Suit No.30-A/2002 has been dismissed and the judgment and decree of trial court has been affirmed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown and nomenclature in the suit before the trial court.

3. The present Second Appeal was admitted for hearing by this court on

13.12.2007 on the following substantial questions of law:

“1. Whether the findings recorded by both the courts below that the appellant/plaintiff is not the owner and the respondent/ defendant not his tenant, is perverse since both the courts below overlooked the oral evidence of the plaintiff as also the documents Ex.P/1 and P/2 produced by Smt. Bhagwati Bai, mother of the appellant/plaintiff?

2. If yes, whether the judgment and decree passed under Section 12(1)(a)&(c) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 is liable to be set aside?”

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit accommodation was owned by his mother Bhagwati Bai, which she purchased through registered sale deed dated 01.08.1963 from Smt. Chironjiya Bai and Smt. Keshar Bai (Ex.P/1&P/2) and came into possession thereof. Subsequently, she constructed a shop therein which was let out to the father of defendant Shriram Vig. After death of Shriram Vig, the defendant came into tenancy of plaintiff. The monthly rent of the suit accommodation was Rs.500/- and defendant came into possession as tenant of the plaintiff. It is the further case of plaintiff that the defendant have stopped paying rent for about three years for which he served a legal notice on 20.08.1998, Ex.P/3 and the defendant, in turn, by its reply dated 26.08.1998, Ex.D/1, denied tenancy and title of the plaintiff and neither paid rent nor handed over the vacant possession of the suit accommodation and therefore the plaintiff has filed the suit for eviction against the defendant under Section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(c) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (in short, the Act of

1961).

5. Contesting the suit, the defendant filed his written statement and denied the plaint averment and pleaded that he is not tenant of the plaintiff. He also denied that his father was tenant of Bhagwati Bai. He himself is the owner of suit accommodation. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for decree of eviction. He also pleaded that the plaintiff has also issued a notice to the defendant on 19.03.1986 and claimed arrears of rent and eviction. That notice was also replied by the defendant and the plaintiff was not pursued the said notice dated 19.03.1986 which shows that plaintiff is not the landlord of