1 2026:CGHC:7990 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 54 of 2022 1 - Yashvant Sawariya (Died And Deleted Through Lrs) As Per Honbel Court Order Dated 24-01-2025 1.1 - Madhu Savaria Wd/o Yashvant Sawariya Aged About 78 Years R/o 232 Gandhi Ganj Station Road Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) 1.2 - Yogesh Savaria S/o Yashvant Sawariya Aged About 50 Years R/o 232 Gandhi Ganj Station Road Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) 1.3 - Darshana D/o Yashvant Sawa7riya Aged About 47 Years R/o Ga - 5003 Spring Leaf Akurli Road Lokhandwala Township Kandivali East S.O. District - Mumbai Maharashtra ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Poonamchand Agrawal S/o Lalchand Agrawal, Aged About 56 Years Occupation Buisness, R/o, Beside Gandhiganj Raighar, Tehsil And District Raigarh Chahttisgarh. ... Respondent(s) Date of Hearing : 21.1.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 13.2.2026 For Appellants : Mr. Y.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 5 : Mr. Panoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Harshwardhan, Advocate Ms. Aparajita Pandey, Advocate and Ms. Shivangi Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey CAV Judgment 2 1) This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/ plaintiff under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Raigarh in Civil Appeal No. 1/2021 dated 2.11.2021 whereby the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Raigarh in Civil Suit No. 767A/1997 dated 21.12.2020 was affirmed. 2) This second appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 26.9.2023 on following substantial questions of law :- 1. Whether, the learned Court below were justified in not granting decree of eviction on the basis of Clause 12(1)(f) of the C.G. Accommodation Act on perverse finding ? 2. Whether, the learned Court below were justified in not granting the decree of eviction in favor of the land lord despite recording of finding that there is default in payment of rent ? 3) Plaintiff instituted a civil suit seeking arrears of rent and eviction of defendant on account of bona fide need to commence business activity pertaining to warehouse situated at Sheet No. 44, Plot No. 116/03, Purana Ward No. 18, Godam Nom 186/2 inter-alia on the ground that plaintiff is the landlord of litigating warehouse and defendant is the tenant who did not pay rent from December 1996 to April 1997 amounting to Rs. 2,000/- in violation to written tenancy deed signed by the parties whereby rent of Rs. 400/- was fixed. After default on the part of defendant, legal notice was issued by plaintiff terminating the tenancy and suit was filed. 3 4) Defendant filed written statement and denied the plaint averments. He pleaded that suit warehouse is recorded in the revenue record in name of Smt. Bhagirathi, Jayantilal, Smt. Basant Chouhan and Brijlal Chouhan and they were not impleaded as party-respondents. He further pleaded that plaintiff has alternative accommodation to start his business and essence of bona fide need is not available to him.The Learned trial Court framed issues and parties led evidence. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit recording finding to the effect that plaintiff could not prove bona fide need and he is not entitled to receive arrears of rent Rs. 2,000/-. 5) Plaintiff preferred first appeal under Section 96 of CPC which was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree on the ground that plaintiff failed to plead that he has no alternative accommodation to commence his business and other accommodations are not suitable for doing business activity. Learned first appellate Court held that plaintiff has sold the commercial plot vide sale-deed dated 18.8.2010 (Ex. D/17) ; sold a theatre, shop and vacant land vide sale-deed (Ex.D/25) and shops situated at Plot No. 189 ad- measuring 556 sq. ft vide sale-deeds (Ex. D/26 and D/27). Learned first appellate Court further held that plaintiff failed to substantiate that these plots and shops were not suitable to start business. Further plaintiff is 82 years old and he never ran a business and his source of income is the fund generated from 4 tenancy. It was also held that Smt. Savita Sawariya has also no experience of running business and plaintiff could not prove bona fide need according to Section 21(1)(a), (c) and (f) of Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 [hereinafter to be referred as ‘Act of 1961’]. Learned first appellate Court recorded a specific finding that defendant-tenant has deposited rent from December, 1996 till June, 2006 amounting to Rs. 22,000/- and landlord- plaintiff is entitled to receive said amount. 6) Mr. Y.C. Sharma, learned Senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that tenancy agreement (Ex. P/2) was executed between the parties on 26.9.1995. Initially defendant paid rent regularly but committed default between December, 1996 to April, 1997, therefore legal notice (Ex. P/5) was sent terminating the agreement and thereafter suit was filed on 22.7.1997. He further submits learned Courts below erred in adjudicating the bona fide need of the suit property as landlord alone possesses the right to determine the suitability of a property for starting a business and as there was default in payment of rent, tenancy was terminated and legal notice was sent therefore learned Courts below ought to have decreed the suit. He contends that plaintiff’s power of attorney holder, namely, Yogesh Sawariya appeared in witness- box and proved the facts including tenancy and it is settled well settled principle of law that power of attorney holder can maintain a plaint on behalf of the person he represents provided attorney holder or legal representative should have knowledge about the 5 transaction in question. In this regard he has placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani Versus IndusInd Bank Ltd.1 and Manisha Mahendra Gala and Ors. Versus Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani and Ors.2 He further contends that a tenant who came into possession of rented premises through a rent deed executed by landlord cannot subsequently challenge the landlord’s ownership, especially after having paid rent for decades and defendant/ tenant proposing alternative accommodation cannot dictate the plaintiff-landlord to accept the suitability of the accommodation and to nullify the need by having other premises which are allegedly said to be residential. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Jyoti Sharma Versus Vishnu Goyal and Another3 and Rajani Manohar Kuntha and Ors. Versus Parshuram Chunilal Kanojiya and Ors.4 . He argues that it is not necessary for the landlord to enter the witness-box and his bona fide need cannot be negatived only on the ground that the plaintiff/landlord has not entered in the witness-box. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by co-ordinate Bench in the matter of Naval Kishore Tapadia Versus Munnilal Tailer5. He prays to set aside 1 . (2005) 2 SCC 217 2 . (2024) 6 SCC 130 3 . 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1081 4 . 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1253 5 . (2010) SCC OnLine Chh 393 6 the impugned judgment and decree. 7) On the other hand, Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior counsel appearing for the defendant submits that learned Courts below have recorded concurrent finding of facts regarding absence of bona fide requirement. He further submits that apart on merits, the only question with regard to bona fide need does not give rise to any substantial question of law and the High Court in second appeal cannot re-appreciate the evidence and interfere with the finding of fact reached by the lower appellate Court. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Ram Prashad Rajak Versus Nand Kumar and Bros and Others6 and Mattulal Versus Radelal7. He contends that plaintiff failed to prove his case by deposing in witness-box, instead evidence was adduced by power of attorney holder whereas attorney-holder cannot testify about acts done by the principal or matters of which only the principal has personal knowledge and in order to prove landlord’s bona fide need for eviction, the person concerned (the principal) normally must give evidence personally rather than through an attorney- holder. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Man Kaur Versus Hartar Singh Sangha8. He further contends that bona fide requirement ought to be established through proper evidence 6 . (1998) 6 SCC 748 7 . (1974) 2 SCC 365 8 . (2010) 10 SCC 512 7 which in the instant case is absent. In this regard has placed reliance on judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Nasima Khanam and Others Versus Binod Kumar Saha arising out of SLP(C) No. 16661 of 2023. He prays that this appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. 8) An application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for taking additional evidence on record [I.A. No. 7/2026] along with newspaper advertisement has been moved by the defendant. With respect to said application, Mr. Paranjpe submits that newspaper advertisement clearly establishes that there is no bona fide requirement and the landlord/ plaintiff wants to alienate the property. He prays to allow this application. On the contrary, Mr. Sharma submits that newspaper clip and application for taking additional evidence on record have been specifically denied by the landlord/plaintiff and plaintiff never intended to alienate the property. 9) Taking into consideration the submission made by Mr. Sharma, application moved under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC is hereby rejected. 10) 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 11) It appears that plaintiff filed suit claiming therein arrears of rent and eviction of defendant from the suit warehouse. Defendant has not disputed the tenancy and there is no denial of fact that there was default in payment of regular rent. The judgment and decree passed by learned first appellate Court would reveal that defendant-tenant has deposited arrears of rent Rs. 22,000/- with the concerned Court. Learned Courts below have dismissed the suit filed by plaintiff only on the ground that plaintiff could not prove bona fide need and he has alternative accommodation or shops to commence business activity. 12) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajani Manohar Kuntha (supra) held that defendant proposing alternative accommodation cannot dictate the plaintiff-landlord to accept the suitability of the accommodation and to nullify the need by having other premises which are allegedly said to be residential. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bhupinder Singh Bawa Versus Asha Devi9 held that defendant cannot dictate the plaintiff-landlord regarding suitability of the accommodation and to start the business therein and it is perfectly open to the landlord to choose a more suitable premises for carrying on the business and landlord cannot be dictated by the tenant as to which shop he/she should start the business from. 9 . (2016) 10 SCC 209 9 13) Admittedly, plaintiff’s power of attorney holder Yogesh Sawariya appeared in witness-box before the learned trial Court and deposed the facts which were within his knowledge. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani (supra) held that power of attorney holder can maintain a plaint on behalf of the person he represents provided power of attorney holder or legal representative should have knowledge about the transaction in question. 14) Learned Courts below recorded concurrent findings only on the ground that plaintiff could not prove bona fide need but in my opinion, after termination of tenancy, tenant had no right to retain the accommodation and plaintiff or landlord is the only person who has right to decide the suitability and bona fide need. 15) In this view of the matter, in my considered opinion, microscopic scrutiny as done by the learned first appellate Court is ex facie without jurisdiction and warrants interference in this appeal and deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgments passed by learned Courts below are set aside and suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed. 16) It is directed that the defendant-respondent shall hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the suit premises to the appellants on or before 1.4.2026 and shall not part with or create any third party right therein. Defiance of the above terms, if any, may be treated as non-compliance of the order of this Court. 10 17) As observed by the learned first appellate Court, defendant has deposited the arrears of rent with the concerned Court, thus plaintiff shall be entitled to receive said amount. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.02.13 14:26:23 +0530