WtHE HIGII COVRt OF CHIIAmStSARttAT BILASPUR v. Stand, Main Road

Plaintiff ^&Kri Ram Janki Mandir, through its Manger Ashok Jaiswal, S/o Late Ramju Lal Jaiswal, ' > Main Road, Puraiia Bus Stand, Korba IBCOND APPEAL UNDERSECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDUKB 1908 A«c'". -^'^ HIGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Second Appeal No.320 of 2012 APPELLANT/: (Defehdant) RESPONDENT/: (Plaintiff) Nuruddin Bharmal Versus Shri Ram Janki Mandir {Second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908} Present: Mr. Parag Kotecha, counsel for the appellant. Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr, T.P. Sharma.J • ORDER (30-10-2012)

By this second appeal under Section 100 of'the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the^appellant has challenged legality and propriety of judgment & decree dated 25-8-2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Korba in Civil Appeal No.14A/2012, affirming judgm-ent & decree dated 2-8-2011 passed by the 1s Civil Judge Class-l, Korba in Civil Suit No.18A/1997, whereby the trial Court has decreed the suit for eviction under Sections 12 (1) (a) & 12 (1) (h) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (forshort'the Act').

I Have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused both the judgments & decrees and records of both Courts below.

After arguing at length, 'decree substantiaily, learned counsel for the appellant submits that has been passed under Section 12 (1) (h) of the Act but both the Courts below have not taken care of the provisions of Section 18 of the Act and the trial Court has not ascertained from the appellant - tenant whether he elects to be placed in occupation of the accommodation or.part thereof from which he is to be evicted after recohstruction of the * building, and thereby committed illegality.

On scrutiny of evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, pleadings and 1 do not find any i!legality retating to the judgments & decrees impugned, finding that tfie'appellant was tenant and the respondent was landlord of the tenanted accommodation. Decree hgs been substantially passed under Section 12 (1) (h) of the Act,. At fhetime of passing such decree, the trial -.- .\_ •'^sss^^s^'s's-s^. i^^a^^^^^^a^aaa^n^m ,,lt,J—"~- y ^ ' , Page2of2 S.A.No.320/2012 Court was under obligation to ascertain and to ask the tenant/appellant in accordance with Section 18 of the Act that whether he elects to be placed in occupation of tte accommodation or part thereof from which he is to be evicted after reconstruction of the accommodation in question.

In the light of provisions contained in Section 18 of the Act, appeal is disposed of with a direction that the trial Court shall provide an opportunity of such election under Section 18 of the Act to the appellant and the second thereafter, proceed further and till that election and passing orderin terms of Section 18 of the Act or within 60 days from today, eviction part of the decree shall remain stayed. No order as to costs.

The appellant shall remain present before the trial Court on 3 December, 2012.forfurther proceeding in terms of Section18 of the Act.

Consequently, I.A.Nos.1 & 2 also stand disposed of. Soma . Sd/-,- T.P.Sllarma Judge ^•SSSSs.^SS.