1 2025:CGHC:27781 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 282 of 2021 1 - Maroti Rao S/o Madhukar Londe Aged About 53 Years R/o Amar Band, Farishta Complex And Chhitarmal Khandelwal, Infront Of Dharmshala, Moti Para, Station Road, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant versus 1 - Shyam Sunder Khandelwal S/o Late Pyabhudayal Khandelwal Aged About 69 Years R/o Gandhi Chowk, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Mayank Moolchandani, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate along with Mr. M. L. Sakat, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 25.06.2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. This Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2021 passed by Sixth Additional District Judge, Durg in Civil Appeal No. 53/2017 by which the appeal filed by the appellant/defendant against the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2017 passed by the Court Sixth Additional Civil Judge Class II, Durg has been dismissed. 3. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that :- A) The respondent/plaintiff filed a civil suit for eviction of the BHUMIKA ANGARE Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2025.07.02 10:42:09 +0530 2 appellant/defendant of suit premises situated at Motipara Station Road adjacent to Chitarmal Khandelwal Dharamshala bearing Nazul Sheet No. 45 C Plot No. 69/2 area 140 square meter mainly contending that suit property was given on rent to the appellant/defendant for Rs. 500/- per month and the respondent/plaintiff requires the suit property for running Computer Software business for his son. B) The appellant/defendant filed written statement denying the contentions made in the plaint submitting that the respondent’s/plaintiff’s son is a chemical engineer and is not having degree of computer training, therefore, no bonafide requirement of the respondent/plaintiff is available on record thus he would pray for dismissal of the suit. 4. The respondent/plaintiff examined himself and his son and no independent witness has been examined and the appellant/defendant examined himself and Suresh Sonlanki to rebut the case of the plaintiff. Thereafter learned trial Court vide judgment dated 30.10.2017 in Civil Suit No. 16A/2010 dismissed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff. 5. Being aggrieved with the said order, the respondent/plaintiff preferred a First Appeal before the Sixth Additional District Judge, Durg which was allowed vide judgment dated 29.09.2021 and hence the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant. 6. It has been informed by learned counsel for the parties that during pendency of the appeal, an understanding has been arrived at between the plaintiff/respondent & the defendant/appellant that if the appellant/defendant (tenant) vacates the premises within 06 months subject to payment of entire rent then there will be no objection to the 3 respondent/plaintiff (landlord) to grant such time to the appellant for vacating the premises. 7. Since an understanding has already been arrived at between the parties, therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is modified to the extent of understanding arrived at between the parties by granting 06 months time to vacate the premises after payment of entire arrears of rent. 8. The remaining part of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court affirmed by the appellate Court shall remain intact. Consequently, the instant second appeal is disposed of in terms of understanding arrived at between the parties. 9. A decree be drawn up accordingly. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Bhumika