BAJRANG AGRAWAL Vs. SMT. SUDHA JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on admission. Learned Counsel for the appellant assails legality and validity of the impugned judgment and decree on the following submissions:

(2.) As far as the issue of applicability of the provision of the Act of 1961 is concerned, firstly, this was not raised by the defendant in his written statement and no issue was framed in this regard. During trial, even the concerned statutory notification was not produced before the Court. Though in the appeal, this ground was referred to, statutory notification was not placed before the Lower Appellate Court. Therefore, it was not necessary for the learned Lower Appellate Court to go into this question in the absence of material placed before it. Even otherwise, the First Schedule appended to the Act of 1961 under Sr. No. 19, in District Durg, Kawardha Municipal Area has been clearly stated. Therefore, this ground is not made out.

(3.) The Courts below have recorded concurrent finding with regard to bona fide need of the plaintiff after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence. No patent illegality or perversity is found in the finding which is based on the oral evidence of the plaintiff with regard to his business requirement for getting the accommodation vacated. The provision under section 12 (7) of the Act of 1961 is also not attracted because the suit has been filed after one year of the date of purchase of the accommodation. Therefore, this ground is also not made out.