1 2025:CGHC:55328 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Second Appeal No.505 of 2024 Umeshwar Nath Pandey S/o Late Vishnu Sewak Pandey Aged About 60 Years Occupation- Doctor, R/o Near Pratap Pur Naka, Ring Road, Ambikapur, Distt- Sarguja ( C.G.)...Defendant No.2 ... Appellant versus 1 - Kanaklata Jaiswal W/o Late Kanni Lal Jaiswal Aged About 75 Years Occupation- Business, R/o Police Line, Ramanujganj Road, Ambikapur, Distt- Sarguja (C.G.)….Plainitff 2 - Dr. Premsai Singh Tekam S/o Late Manjan Ram Aged About 66 Years R/o Occupation- Doctor, R/o Pratap Pur, Thana And Post- Pratap Pur, Distt.- Surajpur ( C.G.).Defendant No.1 ... Respondents For Appellant : Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 on Caveat : Shri Sunil Otwani, Senior Advocate along with Shri Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2025.11.14 10:50:15 +0530 2 13.11.2025 1. This Second Appeal has been preferred by Defendant No.2 under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short referred to as ‘the CPC’) against the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2024 passed by the Principal District Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur), District Sarguja in Civil Appeal No.115-A/2018, which in turn, arises out of the judgment and decree dated 16.10.2018 passed by the 1st Civil Judge, Class-1, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Civil Suit No.207-A/2018. By the impugned judgment and decree, the 1st appellate Court has dismissed the Appeal filed by the Defendant/Appellant herein and in consequence, upheld the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, which had decreed the suit in favour of Respondent No.1/Plaintiff filed for eviction of the accommodation situated at Ambikapur near Pratappur Naka, Ring Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja bearing Khasra No.2009/4804/3 admeasuring 0.296 hectares out of 75 x 30 Sq.ft house and open land, for arrears of rent and also for damages. 2. A short question that arises for consideration in this Appeal is whether this Second Appeal involves any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 the CPC and whether such Appeal should be admitted for final hearing ? The parties herein, shall henceforth be referred to as per the description of the Court below. 3 3. The case rests on a concise set of facts. The Plaintiff has filed a Civil Suit for eviction of the suit property, which was given on rent by her husband i.e. erstwhile owner, Late Kanni Lal Jaiswal to Defendant No.1-Dr. Premsai Singh Tekam, who has given sub- tenancy to Defendant No.2-Umeshwar Nath Pandey. After the death of Kanni Lal Jaiswal, the Plaintiff has become the land lady, therefore, instituted the present Suit for arrears of rent as well as for eviction on the ground of bona fide need and the trial Court has decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff, which has been affirmed by the 1st appellate Court. Hence this Second Appeal. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Suit has been filed on 09.08.2010 but, during the pendency of the Civil Suit, the State has enacted Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (for short ‘the Act of 2011’), therefore, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction of the subject Suit. He further submits that as the Plaintiff is a specific category person, therefore, under Chapter-III-A as defined under Section 23-J of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act of 1961’), being a widow, according to Sl. No.3, there is a special procedure and this legal objection has been raised before the trial Court but the same has neither been admitted by the trial Court nor by the 1st appellate Court. He, therefore, prays to allow this Appeal on the legal error committed by the said Courts. 4 5. Conversely, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent No.1 supports the judgment impugned. 6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused both the judgments as also the entire record with utmost circumspection. 7. It is well settled by a long line of judgments of the Supreme Court that the High Court should not interfere with a concurrent finding of fact unless it is perverse. In this regard, law has been laid down in the matters of Deep Chandra Juneja v. Lajwanti Kathuria reported in (2008) 8 SCC 497, Yash Pal v. Ram Lal reported in (2005) 12 SCC 239 and Firojuddin v. Babu Singh reported in (2012) 3 SCC 319. 8. In the matter of State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Shiv Dayal and Anr. Reported in (2019) 8 SCC 637, the same principle has been reiterated that when any concurrent finding of fact is assailed in Second appeal, the Appellant is entitled to point out that it is bad in law because it was recorded de hors the pleadings or based on misreading of material documentary evidence or it was recorded against any provision of law and lastly, the decision is the one which no Judge acting judicially could reasonably have reached. 9. In view of the aforesaid parameters laid down by the Supreme Court for admitting the case for Second Appeal, the first submission, which has been advanced by learned Counsel for the 5 Appellant herein is that the Plaintiff is a special category person as defined under Section 23-J of the Act of 1961 and the Civil Suit has been filed for the composite relief of arrears of rent as well as for eviction on the ground of bona fide need. As per the averments made in the Plaint, it is reflected that the Suit has not been framed in terms of Chapter-III-A of the said Act and in such circumstances, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not ousted in this regard. The Supreme Court, in the matter of Smt Sulochana v. Rajendra Singh reported in AIR 2008 SC 2611, materially observed at paras-21 and 30, which read as under:- “21. The jurisdiction of civil court is also to be determined having regard to the averments contained in the plaint. Appellant did not proceed on the basis that she was a ‘specified landlord’ within the meaning of Section 23-J of the Act. Furthermore a composite suit for eviction was filed, i.e., not only on the ground of bona fide requirement but also on the ground of default of payment of rent as also denial of relationship of landlord and tenant.” XXX XXX XXX 30. It is, therefore, evident that not only a decree for eviction was passed, a decree for payment of arrears of rent, which otherwise could not have been granted by the Rent Controller, was also passed.” 10. Now, the second limb of the argument is with regard to jurisdiction in view of the enactment of the Act of 2011. Proviso to sub-Section (5) of Section 6 of the Act of 2011, in explicit terms, stipulates that all cases pending before any Court or authority immediately before the establishment of the Tribunal, shall 6 continue to be processed under the old Act as amended from time to time. 11. On a conspectus of the aforesaid legal principles, it becomes apparent that both the grounds, which have been raised by learned Counsel for the Appellant, are not acceptable and this Court does not find any legal error on such aspects. 12. Learned Counsel for the Appellant also fails to demonstrate any perversity with regard to finding of fact and therefore, this Court finds absolutely no merit in this Appeal within the meaning of Section 100 of CPC and in my view, the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below appears to be just, proper and legal as the findings recorded therein are based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record and as such, there is no illegality or perversity in the same, which are in consonance with law and hence do not warrant interference. 13. Consequently, the Second Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine resulting in upholding of the judgment and decree of both the Courts below. There shall be no order as to costs. A decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priya