AKHTAR KHAN Vs. KANDARP SHAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal preferred under Section 100 of the CPC by the defendant / appellant herein (now deceased and represented through legal representative), has been admitted for final hearing by formulating the following substantial questions of law: -

(2.) The respondent / plaintiff instituted a suit for eviction and grant of arrears of rent stating inter alia that he is the title-holder of the suit shop No.1 situated at Dinesh Smriti Bhawan over Khasra No.58/7 which was let out to Akhtar Khan - original defendant for commercial purpose on a monthly rent of ? 550/-. It was further pleaded that rent of the suit property was not paid to the plaintiff from September, 2001 and the suit accommodation is required bona fidely for his son as he has no other suitable alternative accommodation for the bona fide need. Since the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 are not applicable at Village Basna, notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, was served on 20-6-2003 terminating the tenancy and suit was instituted for eviction and arrears of rent on 19-9-2003 in which the defendant appeared and filed his written statement controverting the allegations made in the plaint and stated that the suit accommodation was given to him on rent, but the plaintiff refused and even declined to return the security amount of ? 30,000/- and as such, the plaintiff's suit is not based on any legal ground and six months' notice was required to be given for terminating the tenancy and the suit deserves to be dismissed with a cost of ? 5,000/-.

(3.) The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record found that the relationship of landlord and tenant is established and partly decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of the defendant and also entitled for rent from October, 2001 to June, 2003 total amounting to ? 11,550/-. The defendant preferred first appeal there-against before the first appellate Court and the first appellate Court by its impugned judgment and decree dismissed the appeal finding no merit against which the defendant has preferred second appeal before this Court in which two substantial questions of law have been formulated which have been set out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.