1 2025:CGHC:40042 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 68 of 2015 1. Animesh Goswami S/o Shri Chandrahas Goswami Aged About 30 Years R/o Shailendra Nagar Ameri, Police Station Civil Line Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1. Smt. Saroj Mishra W/o Shri Harishankar Mishra Aged About 60 Years R/o Shankar Nagar, Near Mohan Building, Bilaspur, Tahsil - Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 20-06-2025) 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikrant Pillai, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For State : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Judgment on Board 11.08..2025 1. This is defendant’s first appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2014 passed by the learned 4th Additional Judge of the learned 1st Additional District Judge Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 14-A/2014 by which the learned trial Court has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title, MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2025.10.09 18:38:26 +0530 2 permanent injunction and possession. 2. The parties have been described as per their description in Civil Suit No. 14-A/2014. 3. Brief facts as reflected from the record are that: (a) The suit was filed by the plaintiff through her Power of Attorney holder for declaration of title, permanent injunction and possession mainly contending that the Aawashin Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Ameri, Bilaspur (C.G.) (in short “Samiti”) has constructed house in the land bearing Khasra Nos. 345/1 to 345/3 and 346/1 to 346/11 admeasuring about 04.21 acres which has been diverted land for residential purpose after approval from the Director, Town and Country Planning. The Society is a registered society, wherein the plaintiff’s son Mukesh Kumar has paid the installments, thereafter, an agreement was executed between him and society on 24.10.1992, thereafter, plaintiff’s son expired. Accordingly, plot admeasuring about 1,000 sq.ft. was allotted to the plaintiff. The description of the suit property has also been described in plaint as Annexure “A” (hereinafter referred to as “suit property”). (b) The plaintiff’s son has paid the installments and after construction, on 08.05.1998 the Housing Society has given possession to the plaintiff, thereafter, the plaintiff’s son all of sudden on 01.06.2007 in an accident has expired which has caused mental agony and torture to her, therefore, she has left her house and gone to her village Bilaigarh. Thereafter, the plaintiff has given the house to the son’s friend, but since he is known to her, no documentation has been done. Thereafter, with an intention to acquire the said land he 3 has started construction over the house. The plaintiff has lodged a complaint on 04.01.2014 before the Police Station - Chakarbhata, District - Bilaspur (C.G.), but the defendant has not vacated the house despite persuasion made by the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff has filed suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and possession. 4. The defendant has filed written statement wherein he has raised objection about non-impleadment of the Society as party to the case, the State is not necessary party and thirdly the valuation has not been properly done. It has also been contended that he has already constructed in the house and incurred expenditure to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-. It has also been contended that defendant has not illegally taken possession of the house, but after granting permission of the plaintiff he has only in possession of the house, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the plaint with cost. 5. The learned trial Court on the pleadings of the parties has framed as many as 4 issues out of which issues No. 1 and 2 are relevant which are extracted below as under: “1- D;k oknxzLr Hkwfe ekStk vesjh] i-g-ua- 26] rglhy r[kriqj] ftyk fcykliqj fLFkr Hkwfe IykV ua-&46] jdck 1000 oxZfQV okfnuh ds iq= egs’k ik.Ms; dk vkoklh; x`g fuekZ.k lgdkjh lfefr e;kZfnr fcykliqj }kjk vkcafVr djrs gq, vkf/kiR; o dCTkk iznku fd;k x;k Fkk] ftldk og ,dek= Lokeh o vkf/kiR;/kkjh Fkk\ 2- D;k okfnuh] izfroknh ds fo:) oknxzLr Hkwfe ij dCtk] LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ,oa LoRo dh ?kks"k.kk dh vkKfIr izkIr djus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gS\” 6. The plaintiff to substantiate her evidence has exhibited documents: Special Power of Attorney (Exhibit P/1), Title letter (Exhibit P/2), No Objection Certificate of the Society (Exhibit P/3), Loan Details Receipt of the Society (Exhibit P/4 to Exhibit P/17), Letter to 4 Branch Manager State Bank, Balodabazar from Additional Motor Accident Claims Authority, Balodabazar (Exhibit P/18), Letter dated 03.04.1998 of the Society (Exhibit P/19), Death Certificate of Mukesh Kumar (Exhibit P/20), Receipt of Complaint made by Janki Devi (Exhibit P/21). The plaintiff to substantiate her case has examined by way of affidavit as provided under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC. She was subjected to cross-examined wherein she has reiterated that since she is special-able lady, therefore, she has taken the assistance of Power of Attorney holder. The Power of Attorney holder has informed that the defendant has constructed house over the suit property without permission of the plaintiff. The Power of Attorney holder was also examined before the trial Court wherein he has exhibited the documents (Exhibit P/1 to P/21) and the said witnesses was cross-examined, but nothing was brought on record to rebut the factum that the plaintiff’s son was not the owner of the suit property. 7. The defendant examined himself as per Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC wherein he has reiterated the stand taken by him in the written statement and have stated that with permission of plaintiff only he has done the development work in the suit property. The plaintiff is not required the bonafide need of the house. The said witness was cross-examined by the plaintiff wherein he has admitted that the society has allotted the house in the name of Mukesh Pandey who is son of the plaintiff and he is the owner of the suit property. The witness has also admitted that he has not produced any bills of expenditure to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-. He has also admitted that he has not submitted any report of engineer or surveyor for 5 expenditure to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- in the suit property. 8. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence, material on record has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff by directing the defendant to vacate the suit premises within three months vide its judgment and decree dated 19.12.2014 and also declared that the plaintiff is title holder of the suit property. Learned trial Court has also restrained the defendant from doing any damages or any construction work over the suit property. Being aggrieved with this judgment and decree the defendant has preferred this first appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant forcefully argued that the finding recorded by the trial Court is perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. He would further submit that the trial Court should have seen that the plaintiff has not made party to the society which is necessary party in the present case, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed on the count of non-joinder of the society as necessary party. He would further submit that suit has undervalued, therefore, the suit should have been dismissed by this Court and on the merit he would submit that the plaintiff is unable to establish that bonafide need is required for the plaintiff or the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff’s son. In absence of any such material on record, the finding recorded by the trial Court suffers from perversity, illegality and would pray for allowing the appeal. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff would oppose the submission and support the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. He would submit that the trial Court on the basis of possession letter issued by the society and also admission by the 6 defendant in the cross-examination, it has recorded its finding that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff’s son who expired and there is no objection also raised by the defendant regarding the property inherit by the plaintiff as she being a mother, any such adverse finding recorded by the trial Court that the plaintiff is title holder of the suit property cannot said to be suffers from perversity, illegality warranting interference by this Court. He would further submit that since the defendant was encroacher, therefore, judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is not liable to be interfered by this Court and would pray for dismissal of the appeal. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Court below with utmost circumspection. 12. The learned trial Court on comprehensively analyzing the evidence, material on record and the documents, particularly possession letter issued in favouor of the plaintiff’s son and statements of the plaintiff and power of attorney holder who in categorical terms have stated that the plaintiff’s son after paying all entire installments to the society, possession letter has already been given and this fact has not been rebutted by the respondent by sufficient evidence on record, therefore, finding recorded by the trial Court as plaintiff is title holder of the suit property neither suffers from perversity nor illegality which warrants interference by this Court. Even the defendant in his cross-examination has admitted the fact that the plaintiff’s son Mukesh Pandey was the title holder of the suit property, therefore, the finding to the extent that the suit property is held by the plaintiff is not liable to be interfered. 7 13. So far as finding with regard to possession, the learned trial Court has recorded its finding that the plaintiff in the plaint herself stated that the defendant is known to her son, therefore, she has granted permission to him to leave in the house, as such, it is permissive possession which stood withdraw by the plaintiff when she requested him to vacate, but no attention was paid and thereafter, she made complaint before the Police Station - Chakarbhata, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) on 14.01.2014 (Exhibit P/21), still the defendant has not vacate the possession. The learned trial Court has also recorded its finding that without any direction or permission the defendant has made some development work, as such, the defendant has transgressed its authority while living in the suit property. From the abovestated reason and considering the evidence, material on record, it cannot be said that the trial Court has committed illegality in directing the defendant to give possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. 14. So far as the bonafide need of the plaintiff is concerned, it is well settled position of law that the bonafide need is subjective satisfaction of the owner of the suit property and the defendant who is tenant cannot dictate or question the bonafide need of land owner as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Murlidhar Aggarwal (D.) Thr. His LR. Atul Kumar Aggarwal Appellant(s) Versus Mahendra Pratap Kakan (D.) Thr. LRs. And Ors. decided on 24.04.2025 in Civil Appeal No. 4275 of 2017 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in relevant paragraphs has held as under: “25. It is well settled that the bona fide requirement for 8 occupation of the landlord has to be liberally construed and, as such, even the requirement of the family members would be covered. [See Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal, (2002) 5 SCC 397 and Dwarkaprasad v. Niranjan and Anr., (2003) 4 SCC 549] 28. In Mohd. Ayub and Anr. v. Mukesh Chand, (2012) 2 SCC 155, this Court, by relying on Ganga Devi v. District Judge, Nainital and Ors., (2008) 7 SCC 770 and Bhagwan Dass v. Jiley Kaur (Smt) and Anr., 1991 Supp (2) SCC 300, held that one of the circumstances to be seen while appreciating the comparative hardship is to examine whether the tenant has brought on record any material to indicate that at any time during the pendency of the long drawn-out litigation, he made any attempt to seek an alternative accommodation and was unable to get it. This factor will be one of the circumstances to be taken into consideration while determining whether the claim of the landlord is bona fide. In this case, nothing is on record to show that the tenant who has been in the premises for a total of 73 years with 63 years of them after the expiry of the lease, has made any attempt to seek any alternative accommodation and nothing is brought on record to show that he was unable to get one. 31. In Nidhi v. Ram Kripal Sharma(D.) Thr. LRs, (2017) 5 SCC 640, the landlady had moved away to a different town after marrying an officer of the Indian Revenue Service. Notwithstanding that the Court found her bona fide need had subsisted as she wanted the premise not just for herself but to accommodate her parents & grandparents like in the present case, the need for the family was found. 32. In Sheshambal (D.) Thr. LRs. v. Chelur Corporation Chelur Building and Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 470, where the landlady lost throughout from the Trial Court stage, this Court while confirming the eviction decree found that none of the married daughters had a bona fide need for the premises and that the death of the landlady on facts of that case brought to an end the ground of personal requirement. The said case is wholly distinguishable from the facts that are established in the present case.” 15. Therefore, considering the law on this subject and considering the evidence and material on record, I am of the view that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court does not suffer from perversity or illegality which warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, the first appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is 9 hereby dismissed. 16. The interim order passed by this Court on 13.08.2015 is vacated. No order as to costs. 17. A decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish