1 CGHC010162672015 2026:CGHC:28264 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 186 of 2015 1 - Yashwant Sanvaria (Died) Through Lrs. (As Per Honble Court Order Dated- 11-05-2026) 1.1 - Madhu Savaria Wd/o Yashwant Sanvaria Aged About 79 Years R/o 232, Gandhi Ganj Station Road, Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) 1.2 - Yogesh Savaria S/o Yashwant Sanvaria Aged About 51 Years R/o 232, Gandhi Ganj Station Road, Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) 1.3 - Darshana D/o Yashwant Sanvaria Aged About 48 Years R/o Ga-5003, Spring Leaf, Akurli Road, Lokhandwala Township, Kandivali, East S.O. District- Mumbai. ... Appellants versus 1 - Lalchand Agrawal (Dead) Through Legal Heirs 1. Smt. Jamunadevi (Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 02-03-2016 2 - Punamchand S/o Lalchand Agrawal Aged About 41 Years R/o Gandhiganj Raigarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Santosh S/o Lalchand Agrawal Aged About 31 Years R/o Gandhiganj Raigarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Rajesh S/o Lalchand Agrawal Aged About 40 Years R/o Gandhiganj Raigarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Savitri W/o Late Vijay Kumar Aged About 46 Years R/o Gandhiganj Raigarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6 - Prerit S/o Late Vijay Kumar Agrawal Aged About 23 Years R/o Gandhiganj Raigarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 7 - Prateek S/o Late Vijay Kumar Agrawal Aged About 21 Years R/o Gandhiganj Raigarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 8 - Pravesh S/o Late Vijay Kumar Agrawal Aged About 20 Years R/o Gandhiganj Raigarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 9 - The Divisional Engineer Electrical Engineer M.P. / C.G. State Electricity Board, Near Gopi Talkies, Raigarh Tahsil Raigarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 10 - Jayantilal Sanvaria S/o Shri Nanhelal Sanvaria Aged About 66 Years R/o Gandhiganj HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2026.07.16 17:34:44 +0530 2 Raigarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh .............Defendants, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Y. C. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sameer Rigri, Advocate For Respondent No. 2, 3 & 5 : Ms. Aprajita Pandey on behalf of Mr. Harshwardhan Agrawal, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Judgment on Board 08.07.2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. The parties are referred to their original status before the learned trial Court. 3. This is an appeal preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”) assailing the legality, correctness and validity of the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2014 passed in Civil Appeal No. 6-A/2013 passed by the learned Additional Judge, Fast Track, Raigarh, (C.G.) (for short “learned Appellate Court”). 4. By the impugned judgment and decree, the appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 96 of the CPC was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2008 passed by the learned 2nd Civil Judge, Class-II, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) (for short “learned Trial Court”) in Civil Suit No. 70-A/2006 was affirmed. 5. Facts of the case in a nutshell is that initially a civil suit filed by the plaintiffs namely Yashwant Sanwariya and Jayantilal Sanwariya claiming themselves to landlord of the suit property situated at Gandhi Ganj, Raigarh old Ward No. 18, House Nos. 186/3 and 186/4 (located behind Gandhi Ganj) which according to them was given on rent to original Defendant Lalchand Agrawal, for the specific purpose of being used as a godown. Pleading of the plaint further reflects that the original defendant No. 1 without obtaining the consent or permission of the landlord, demolished the intervening wall between the two premises and instead of using the premises as a godown, installed a flour mill and with connievance of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, Raigarh (for short “MPEB”) also obtained a 15 horse power electricity 3 connection and commenced operation of the flour mill which has adversely affected the rights and interests of the plaintiffs. On account of running of the flour mill it has resulted in damage to the foundation of the building. Despite of asking to close down the electricity supply and the operation of the flour mill, defendant No. 1 continued operating the same. The further case of the plaintiffs is that they sent a legal notice under Section 80 of the CPC to the MPEB to asked them to shut down the flour mill. Original defendant No. 1 continued to assure the plaintiffs that he would close the mill and hand over vacant possession of the premises to them even despite of that neither the power line was disconnected nor the flour mill was closed. Thus, a register notice dated 04.01.1997 was sent which was refused to accept by him. It has been further pleaded that the suit premises required for bona fide purpose for their own businesses and there is no other alternative house or place available in the Raigarh city except the suit premises, thus the suit for vacant possession and damages was filed. 6. The original defendant No. 1 filed his written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. He specifically pleaded that he was never a tenant of the suit godown and contended that, despite being aware of this fact, the plaintiffs deliberately suppressed the same and instituted the present suit. It was further pleaded that defendant No. 1 neither operated any flour mill in the suit premises nor carried out any demolition therein. He also asserted that no notice had ever been served upon him. According to defendant No. 1, as no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the plaintiffs and himself, the suit was not maintainable. It was further contended that the suit premises had originally been let out to Vijay Kumar Agrawal, and the rent receipts had consistently been issued in the name of Vijay Kumar Agrawal. On these grounds, defendant No. 1 prayed for dismissal of the suit. 7. Defendant No. 2 also filed his written statement and denied the averments of the plaint. 4 8. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues for determination. 1. Whether Defendant No. 1 had taken the disputed godowns bearing Survey Nos. 186/3 and 186/4 on rent from the plaintiff? “Not Proved.” 2.Whether the tenancy was created only for the purpose of storage of goods? “Not Proved.” 3. Whether Defendant No. 1, without the permission of the plaintiff, demolished a wall of the godown and installed and commenced an atta chakki (flour mill) by obtaining an electricity/power connection therein? “Not Proved.” 4. Whether the plaintiff suffered a loss of Rs.10,000? “Not Proved.” 5. Whether the vibrations caused by the operation of the atta chakki (flour mill) are causing damage to the foundation and walls of the building? “Not Proved.” 6. Whether Defendant No. 2, in violation of the provisions of the Electricity Act, granted an electricity/power connection to Defendant No. 1? “Not Proved.” 7. Whether Defendant No. 1 is entitled to recover possession of 0.15 decimal of land comprising the granary (Kothar) constructed on the suit property? “Not Proved.” 8. Relief and costs. As per paragraph 155. 9. The parties led both oral and documentary evidence before the learned Trial Court. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court decided the issues against the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs preferred a first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC before the learned First Appellate Court. The appeal also came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree. During the pendency of the first appeal, the original Defendant No. 1 Lalchandra Agrawal passed away, whereupon his legal representatives were brought on record. Thereafter, the present second appeal came to be preferred by one of the original plaintiffs. Plaintiff No. 2 was arrayed as Respondent No. 10 in the present 5 appeal. During the pendency of the present appeal, Plaintiff No. 1 also expired and his legal representatives were accordingly substituted on record. 10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the findings recorded by both the learned Trial Court and the learned First Appellate Court are perverse and contrary to the evidence available on record. It was contended that the plaintiffs had adduced cogent, reliable and convincing evidence establishing the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship between the original plaintiffs and the original defendant No. 1. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel issues Nos. 1 and 2 ought to have been decided in favour of the plaintiffs. It was further submitted that even assuming arguendo that Vijay Kumar Agrawal was the original tenant of the suit premises and upon the death of Lalchandra Agrawal, his legal representatives including Vijay Kumar Agrawal were substituted on record and consequently, the tenancy devolved upon them. Therefore, it is prayed that the substantial questions of law proposed in the memorandum of appeal arise for consideration, warranting admission of the present appeal. 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 5 supports the impugned judgment and decree and submits that both the courts below after proper appreciation of the evidence on record, gave concurrently findings of fact which do not warrant any interference. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and have carefully perused the entire record with due circumspection. 13. The case of the original plaintiffs throughout has been that they were the landlords of the suit premises and that original defendant No. 1 Lalchandra Agrawal was their tenant. In view of the rival pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed the principal issue regarding the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1. Determination of this issue was fundamental as the plaintiffs' entitlement to the reliefs of possession, damages and other consequential reliefs was entirely dependent upon establishing such a relationship. The burden of proving the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship squarely rested upon the plaintiffs. The 6 remaining issues framed by the learned Trial Court were consequential in nature and substantially depended upon the determination of Issue No. 1. 14. Although the plaintiffs through oral evidence, attempted to establish that Lalchandra Agrawal was their tenant, a careful examination of the record reveals otherwise. In his cross-examination, Plaintiff No. 1 Yashwant Sanwariya categorically admitted that the suit premises had not been let out to defendant No. 1 and that no tenancy agreement had ever been entered into with him. This admission strikes at the very foundation of the plaintiffs' case. 15. The documentary evidence available on record also militates against the plaintiffs' claim. The notice calling upon the tenant to vacate the suit premises had admittedly been addressed to Vijay Kumar Agrawal through Advocate Shri Shrivastava. Furthermore, the rent receipts (Exhibits D-1 and D-2) as well as the other rent receipts produced on record, consistently record Vijay Kumar Agrawal as the tenant, while plaintiff No. 1 Yashwant Sanwariya is shown as the landlord. At no point do these documents indicate that defendant No. 1 Lalchandra Agrawal was the tenant of the suit premises. 16. Upon a comprehensive appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court recorded a categorical finding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship between themselves and original defendant No. 1. Consequently, Issues Nos. 1 and 2 were answered against the plaintiffs. The learned First Appellate Court, upon reappreciation of the entire evidence, affirmed the said findings. 17. The findings so recorded by both the courts below are pure findings of fact, arrived at after a thorough and meticulous appreciation of the evidence on record. No material has been pointed out to demonstrate that the said findings suffer from perversity, are based on no evidence or are such that no reasonable person could have arrived at them. 18. The submission advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that Vijay Kumar Agrawal having been brought on record as one of the legal representatives of 7 deceased defendant No. 1 should now be treated as the tenant of the suit premises, also does not merit acceptance. Vijay Kumar Agrawal was substituted on record solely in his capacity as one of the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No. 1. Such substitution does not alter the nature of the plaintiffs' pleadings nor can it be construed as establishing the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiffs and Vijay Kumar Agrawal for the purposes of the present proceedings. Significantly, the consistent case pleaded by the plaintiffs from the inception of the litigation has been that defendant No. 1 namely Lalchandra Agrawal was the tenant of the suit premises and not Vijay Kumar Agrawal. The appellants cannot now be permitted to improve or alter the very foundation of their case at the stage of second appeal by advancing a contention inconsistent with their original pleadings. Consequently, this Court finds no merit in the said submission. 19. It is well settled that for admission of a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, formulation of a substantial question of law is sine qua non, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 1962 SC 1314 and in the matter of Chandrabhan (Deceased) Through Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Saraswati & Ors. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1273. In the present case, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. 20. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. Decree be drawn accordingly. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE H. Ansari