NINDER SINGH Vs. HARISH CHANDRA GULATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial questions of law involved and to be answered in this second appeal are as under:--

(2.) Questioning the legal acceptability and legal correctness of the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, the defendant has filed this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the CPC") challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 18/08/2003 passed by Third Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Appeal No. 45-A/2002, by which, the First Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 18/10/2001 passed by Second Civil Judge Class-II, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 219-A/1998.

(3.) Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant would submit that both the Courts below have fallen into grave legal error in granting decree on the ground under Section 12(1)(e) of the Act, ignoring the fact that the eviction suit was filed by plaintiff on 02/01/1996 for his projected and premature need to arise in the month of September, 1996. He would further submit that Section 12(10) of the Act is mandatory in nature and non-compliance of the same would disentitle the plaintiff for decree under Section 12(1)(m) of the Act. He would lastly submit that entire arrears of rent has been paid by tenant during the pendency of appeal, decree granted by both the Courts below under Section 12(1)(a) of Act is also bad in law. Therefore, the judgment and decree of both the Courts below deserves to be set-aside and the plaintiff's suit be dismissed with cost.