1 2026:CGHC:1903 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 159 of 2004 1 - Deleted (Ram Pyare Sahu) Nill 1.1 - Smt. Teej Bai Wd/o Ram Pyare Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o In Front Of Dharam Lodge Main Road Korba Chhattisgarh. 1.2 - Motilal S/o Ram Pyare Sahu, Aged About 38 Years R/o In Front Of Dharam Lodge Main Road, Korba Chhattisgarh. 1.3 - Yadram S/o Ram Pyare Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o In Front Of Dharam Lodge Main Road, Korba Chhattisgarh. 1.4 - Smt. Saroj D/o Ram Pyare Sahu, W/o Ramnarayan Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Devnandan Nagar, Chantidih, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Laxman Singh (Died ) Through Lrs As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 12-12-2025 2.1 - (A) Smt. Nirmala Devi W/o Late Laxman Singh Aged About 66 Years R/o Main Road Near Bajarang Talkies Korba Tahsil And District- Korba (C.G.) 2.2 - (B) Rakesh Singh S/o Late Laxman Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Main Road Near Bajarang Talkies Korba Tahsil And District- Korba (C.G.) 2.3 - (C) Mukesh Kumar Singh S/o Late Laxman Singh Aged About 41 Years R/o Main Road Near Bajarang Talkies Korba Tahsil And District- Korba (C.G.) 2.4 - (D) Mrs. Neeraj Singh D/o Late Laxman Singh W/o Kumar Gaurav Aged About 41 Years R/o Khagari Road Defance Colony Danapur, Digha Diara, Patna Bihar -800012 Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.01.19 10:34:21 +0530 2 3 - Ramadhar Singh S/o Late Balram Singh Aged About 32 Years Korba District Korba 4 - Dinesh Singh S/o Late Balram Singh Tahkur Aged About 24 Years R/o Korba Chhattisgarh 5 - Dhanesh Singh S/o Late Balram Singh Thakur Aged About 18 Years R/o Korba Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Ram Pyari Devi W/o Late Balram Singh Thakur Aged About 55 Years Prop. Dharamraj Hotel Opp. To Bajrang Talkies, Korba Distt. Korba Chhattisgarh Defendants ... Appellants versus 1 - Deleted (Bishambhar Prasad) Nill 1.1 - Smt. Geeta Modi Wd/o Bishamber Prasad Modi. Aged About 61 Years R/o Raj Kamal Stores, Main Road, Korba, District Chhattisgarh. 1.2 - Raj Kumar Modi S/o Bishamber Prasad Modi. Aged About 40 Years R/o Raj Kamal Stores, Main Road, Korba, District Chhattisgarh. 1.3 - Rakesh Modi S/o Bishamber Prasad Aged About 36 Years R/o Raj Kamal Stores, Main Road, Korba, District Chhattisgarh. 1.4 - Vinay Kumar Modi S/o Bishamber Prasad Modi. R/o Raj Kamal Stores, Main Road, Korba, District Chhattisgarh. 1.5 - Smt. Vidya Agrawal W/o Ashok Kumar Agrawal Aged About 42 Years D/o Bishamber Prasad Modi R/o Argoha, Marg Korba Chhattisgarh. 1.6 - Smt. Sweta Agrawal W/o Madhukant Agrawal, Aged About 27 Years D/o Bishambar Prasad Modi R/o Rishi Colony, Dayalaband, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Bhagwandas S/o Dwarika Das Aged About 35 Years R/o Vimal Stationery Opp. Usha Complex Korba Chhattisgarh. 3 - Deleted (Radheshyam ) Nill 3.1 - Smt. Chanda Devi W/o Late Radheshyam Modi, Aged About 67 Years R/o Donga Ghat, Mandi Roar Champa, Tehsil And District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 3.2 - Anil Kumar Modi So Late Radheshyam Modi, Aged About 47 Years R/o Donga Ghat, Mandi Roar Champa, Tehsil And District Janjgir 3 Champa Chhattisgarh. 3.3 - Pawan Kumar Modi S/o Late Radheshyam Modi, Aged About 45 Years R/o Donga Ghat, Mandi Roar Champa, Tehsil And District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 3.4 - Vinod Kumar Modi S/o Late Radheshyam Modi, Aged About 43 Years R/o Donga Ghat, Mandi Roar Champa, Tehsil And District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 3.5 - Sushil Kumar Modi S/o Late Radheshyam Modi Aged About 41 Years R/o Donga Ghat, Mandi Roar Champa, Tehsil And District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 4 - Deleted (Smt. Ginni Bai ) Nill 4.1 - Shri Gajanand Bhopalpuria S/o Chandrabhan Bhopalpuria. Aged About 62 Years R/o Gajanand Medical Store, Station. Road, Naila. 4.2 - Shri Rishi Kumar Bhopalpuria S/o Chandrabhan Bhopalpuria. Aged About 60 Years R/o Gajanand Medical Store, Station Road, Naila. 4.3 - Shri Naresh Kumar Bhopalpuria S/o Chandrabhan Bhopalpouria. Aged About 52 Years R/o Gajanand Medical Store, Station Road, Naila. 5 - Smt. Narbadi Bai W/o Late Rekh Chandra Agrawal Aged About 58 Years R/o Firm Sitaram Rekhchandra Agrawal, Birmitrapur, Distt. Sundergarh Orissa Defendant No. 4 C, Orissa 6 - Smt. Savitri Devi (Died Through Lrs) Nill 6.1 - Smt. Madhu Agrawal W/o Late Shri Shiv Agrawal (Daughter Of Deceased) R/o Jugal Paan Pasala, Near Saptdeo Mandir, Main Road, Korba, Tehsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh 6.2 - Jugal Agrawal S/o Late Phool Chandra Agrawal (Son Of Deceased) R/o Jugal Paan Pasala, Near Saptdeo Mandir, Main Road, Korba, Tehsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh 6.3 - Shiv Agrawal S/o Late Shri Phool Chandra Agrawal (Son Of Deceased) R/o Jugal Paan Pasala, Near Saptdeo Mandir, Main Road, Korba, Tehsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Ravish Verma, Advocate For Respondents No. 1(A) to 1(F) : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate 4 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 13.1.2026 1) This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/ defendants against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Korba in Civil Appeal No. 13-A/1999 dated 30.12.2003, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondents/ plaintiffs was decreed and the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Korba in Civil Suit No. 52-A/1997 dated 9.8.1999 was set aside. 2) This second appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 16.4.2004 on following substantial question of law :- “Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the First Appellate Court was right in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court by converting the eviction suit into a title suit ?” 3) Facts of the present case are that the original plaintiff, namely, Bishambhar Prasad S/o Dwarika Das instituted a civil suit for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and damages against the defendants inter-alia on the ground that the suit house was rented to defendants No.1 and 2 and in this regard, there was an agreement entered into between original plaintiff and defendant No.1. It was pleaded that Laxmi Bai and Sushil Kumar had no authority of law to terminate the tenancy as no rent agreement was entered into between them and defendants No.1 and 2.It was further pleaded that defendants No.1 and 2 cannot take benefit of 5 erroneous revenue entries. It was also pleaded that defendants No. 1 and 2 are tenants and rent receipts were issued by various persons including Dhanraj, Dwarika Das and Laxmi Bai. Plaintiff also pleaded that Bhagwan Das (defendant No. 3) is his real brother and has equal right over the suit house. Plaintiff contended that defendants No. 1 and 2 made payment of rent till March, 1977 and thereafter stopped making payment, therefore defendants No. 1 and 2 are liable to be evicted according to the provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 [hereinafter to be referred as ‘The Act of 1961’] and notice was issued to defendants on 23.4.1977. It is further contended that two sale-deeds were executed by Laxmi Bai, Banda Devi and Sushil Kumar in favor of defendants No. 1 and 2 on 14.4.1977. 4) Defendants No. 1 and 2 filed joint written statement and denied plaint averments. They pleaded that defendants No. 1 and 2 never remained tenants of plaintiff, instead they were tenants of Laxmi Bai and Sushil Kumar as they were the owners of the suit house. They further pleaded that the suit house situated over Khasra No. 497/11 was initially purchased by Dhanraj from one Bhagyawati Devi on 16.10.1955 and said property was gifted through gift-deed to Laxmi Bai and Sushil Kumar on 16.3.1968. They contended that rent agreement was entered into between Laxmi Devi and Sushil Kumar and defendant No. 1 ; the tenancy continued till 14.4.1977 and thereafter by virtue of sale-deeds, they became the 6 owners of the suit property. Defendants No. 1 and 2 denied the allegation regarding non-joinder of parties. Learned trial Court framed issues ; parties led evidence and thereafter, suit was was dismissed. Plaintiff preferred first appeal under Section 96 of CPC and learned appellate Court reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and decreed the suit. 5) Mr. Ravish Verma, counsel appearing for the defendants No. 1 and 2 submits that on 14.4.1977, via registered sale deeds (Exhibits D/5 and D/8), Laxmi Bai and Sushil Kumar alienated the suit property in two parts: one half-share was conveyed to Motilal Sahu (the minor son of Ram Pyare Sahu, defendant No. 1), while the remaining half-share was sold to Thakur Balram Singh (father of defendant No. 2). He further submits that plaintiff instituted a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears despite having full knowledge that the suit property had already been alienated to defendants No. 1 and 2 via registered sale deeds, therefore learned trial Court dismissed the suit. He contends that plaintiff also failed to establish the alleged tenancy. He further contends that learned appellate Court reversed the findings arrived at by learned trial Court in absence of documentary evidence and decided the issue of title holding that plaintiff was not the owner of the suit house. He argues that suit house was purchased by Dhanraj through sale-deed dated 16.10.1955 whereas the firm was registered in the year 1957-58, therefore the finding to the 7 effect that suit house was purchased from the income of firm is also erroneous. He prays to allow this appeal. 6) On the other hand, Mr. Parag Kotecha, counsel for the plaintiff/ respondents No. 1(A) to 1(F) submits that defendants No. 1 and 2 were the tenants of plaintiff and the suit house was purchased from the income of firm, therefore Dhanraj alone had no authority of law to gift out the property in favor of Laxmi Bai and Sushil Kumar. He further submits that the suit house was purchased by the firm itself in the name of Dhanraj and mere entry of the name of Dhanraj would not confer any right in his favor, therefore the further alienation of suit property in the names of Laxmi Bai and Sushil Kumar was bad in law and the learned appellate Court rightly recorded a specific finding in this regard. He contends that defendants No. 1 and 2 paid rent till March, 1977 to the plaintiff which establishes that they were tenants of plaintiff. He further contends that according to Section 2(b) of The Act of 1961, “landlord” means a person, who, for the time being, is receiving, or is entitled to receive, the rent of any accommodation, whether on his own account or on account of or on behalf of or for the benefit of, any other person or as a trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the accommodation were let to a tenant and includes every person not being a tenant who from time to time derives title under a landlord. He argues that in the record of 8 rights, Khasra No. 497/11 was recorded in the names of plaintiff and his brothers and civil suit for partition of said property remains pending consideration before First Additional District Judge, Bilaspur. He further argues that learned appellate Court applying the provisions of Section 12(1)(a), (b) and (c) rightly decreed the suit. He has placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Sri Ram Pasricha Versus Jagannath and Others1 and Om Prakash Versus Mishri Lal (dead) represented by his Lr. Savitri Devi2. 7) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and carefully perused the documents placed on record. 8) Evidently, plaintiff claimed himself the owner of suit house and filed suit for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and damages. In the plaint, plaintiff admitted that two sale-deeds were executed on 14.4.1977 by Laxmi Bai and Sushil Kumar in favor of Motilal Sahu (the minor son of Ram Pyare Sahu, Defendant No. 1) and Thakur Balram Singh (father of Defendant No. 2) pertaining to the suit house and possession was also handed over. It was also pleaded that after March, 1977, defendants No. 1 and 2 stopped making payment of rent. 1. AIR 1976 SC 2335 2. AIR 2017 SC 1597 9 9) Mr. Kotecha has made a contention to the effect that suit property was joint property of firm and its partners as it was purchased from the income of firm registered sometimes in the year 1955-56. In this regard, Dwarika Das (DW/2) in para-11 has admitted that firm came into existence in the year 1957-58 whereas the suit house was purchased by Dhanraj vide sale-deed dated 16.10.1955, therefore it cannot be presumed that suit house was purchased by the plaintiff and his brothers from the income of the firm. 10) Admittedly, the suit house was purchased by Dhanraj from one Bhagyawati Devi vide sale-deed dated 16.10.1955. Dhanraj gifted the suit house in favor of Laxmi Bai and Sushil Kumar on 16.3.1968 by way of unregistered gift-deed. This fact was within the knowledge of plaintiff but its execution was never challenged and later on, Laxmi Bai and Sushil Kumar executed sale-deeds on 14.4.1977 in favor of defendants No. 1 and 2 and possession was also handed over. Furthermore, plaintiff could not prove right or title over the suit house by adducing clinching evidence and mere filing rent receipts is not sufficient to establish right over the suit house. 11) Sub-sections (a), (b) and (c) of Section 12(1) of The Act of 1961 are reproduced herein below:- 12. Restriction on eviction of tenants.(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no suit shall be filed in 10 any civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the following grounds only, namely: (a) that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served on him by the landlord in the prescribed manner; (b) that the tenant has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, unlawfully sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the accommodation for consideration or otherwise; (c) that the tenant or any person residing with him has created a nuisance or has done any act which is inconsistent with the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy of the accommodation, or which is likely to affect adversely and substantially the interest of the landlord therein: Provided that the use by a tenant of a portion of the accommodation as his office shall not be deemed to be an act inconsistent with the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy; Bare reading of the above-quoted provisions would make it clear that landlord can file suit for eviction against tenant on following grounds : (i) when tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of rent and notice of demand of arrears of rent has been served by the landlord ; (ii) tenant has sub-let the whole or parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the accommodation for consideration and (iii) tenant has created 11 nuisance which is likely to affect the interest of landlord substantially. 12) Present is a case where plaintiff as well as defendants admitted that defendants No. 1 and 2 purchased the suit house through registered sale-deeds dated 14.4.1977 and stopped making payment of rent being the owners of the property in question. As defendants No. 1 and 2 became owners of the suit property by virtue of sale-deeds dated 14.4.1977, which are still in existence, therefore the issue of sub-letting the property or creating nuisance would not attract and the learned appellate Court committed error of law while reversing the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court. Also, neither plaintiff nor Dwarika Das (DW/2) could lead documentary evidence to prove that they were the owners of the property. 13) The precedents of Sri Ram Pasricha (supra) and Om Prakash (supra) govern the rights of co-owners against existing tenants. Here, the defendants 1 and 2 transitioned from tenants to absolute owners by virtue of registered sale-deeds dated 14.4.1977. Consequently, there was no 'jural relationship' of landlord and tenant in existence at the time of the suit, rendering the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, entirely inapplicable, thus the facts of the present case are distinguishable to the facts of the above cited cases. 12 14) In view of the discussion made herein-above, the substantial question of law is answered in affirmative in favor of the appellants and judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate Court is hereby set aside and decree of the learned trial Court is consequently restored in its entirety. 15) In result, this second appeal stands allowed. A decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a