GIRDHARI LAL Vs. SHYAM SUNDER BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the defendant 's Second Appeal. By way of the instant Second Appeal the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2001 passed by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Appeal No. 33 -A of 2001. By way of the said impugned judgment dated 13.12.2001 the first appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.01.1999 passed -in Civil Suit no. 40 -A of 1995 by the Seventh Civil Judge Class -II, Raipur.

(2.) THE facts leading to the instant Second Appeal is that the Suit premises in the instant Second Appeal is part of the premises no. 5/66, M.G. Road, Raipur. The father of the present appellant was the tenant of the Suit premises since 1965 -66. Respondent no. 1 filed a suit for ejectment of the appellant from the suit premises for bona fide need. From the plaint averment it is evidently clear that the plaintiff had very specifically and in categorical terms said that the plaintiff do not have any other reasonably suitable non -residential accommodation of his own for starting a separate business and therefore the suit premises was bonafidely required. Further, from the plaint averment it is specifically clear that the entire suit preferred by the plaintiff was mainly invoking the provisions of Section 12(1 )(f) of the M.R Accommodation Control Act, 1961 now C.G. Accommodation Control Act (for short 'the Act of 196 -1 ').

(3.) THE appellant by way of the first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC vide Civil Appeal no. 33 -A of 2001 challenged the said judgment and decree. The first appellate Court also after considering the submissions of both the parties vide its impugned judgment and order dated 13.12.2001 dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant leading to the filing of the instant Second Appeal.