Chattisgarh High Court
Pramod Golcha vs Balashram on 6 July, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Second Appeal No.331 of 2011
Pramod Golcha, aged about 58 years, S/o J.D. Golcha, R/o Behind
Pujari School, Near Baba Garage, Rajatalab, Raipur
(Defendant)
---- Appellant
Versus
Balashram, Registered Society, Kachari Chowk, Raipur, through its
Secretary Sohanlal Daga, S/o Suraj Ratan Daga, Raipur
(Plaintiff)
---- Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant/Defendant: Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate.
For Respondent/Plaintiff: Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order On Board
06/07/2021
1. Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of
law in this second appeal preferred by the appellant herein /
defendant.
2. By the impugned judgment, the first appellate Court has
dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendant affirming the
judgment & decree granting decree of eviction in favour of the
plaintiff.
3. Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
herein / defendant, would submit that both the Courts below
have clearly erred in granting decree of eviction in favour of the
plaintiff holding that the suit accommodation is required to the
plaintiff Society under Section 20(d) of the Chhattisgarh
Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act of 1961') for
furtherance of its activities by recording a perverse finding. He
would further submit that the suit was not filed by the competent
person, therefore, the suit as framed and filed was not
maintainable, as such, the appeal involves substantial question of
law and it be admitted for hearing.
4. I have considered the submissions raised on behalf of the
appellant herein / defendant and went through the record with
utmost circumspection.
5. The plaintiff is a registered society registered under the provisions
of the M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. The plaintiff
institution is claimed to be a public institution within the
meaning of Section 20 of the Act of 1961. It is the case of the
plaintiff that it is involved in teaching poor, orphan and
handicapped students / children free of cost and hostel facility is
also being provided for their stay. Out of the house and
accommodation, one accommodation has been let-out to the
defendant on monthly rent of ₹ 545/- for non-residential purpose,
now it is required for furtherance of its activity to orphans and
poor children for their hostel facility and for establishing training
centre for their self-employment for which notice has been served
to the defendant on 4-9-2000 and the tenancy has been
terminated with effect from 30th September, 2000, but it has not
been vacated leading to filing of suit for eviction which was
opposed by the defendant by filing written statement stating inter
alia that the suit accommodation is not required bona fidely, it is
only a pretext of getting the accommodation vacated and for
enhancing rent, the suit has been filed.
6. The trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence available on record, decreed the suit holding that the
plaintiff institution is a registered society under the provisions of
the M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 and a public
institution within the meaning of Section 20 of the Act of 1961
and the suit accommodation is required bona fidely for
furtherance of activities within the meaning of section 20(d) of the
Act of 1961 which was called in question by the defendant by
filing first appeal, but the first appellate Court has also concurred
with the same. As such, the two Courts below have categorically
recorded a finding that the plaintiff Society is a public institution
within the meaning of Section 20 of the Act of 1961 and is
involved in welfare of poor, orphan and physically disabled
children and therefore it is a public institution within the
meaning of Section 20 of the said Act. Such a finding recorded by
the two Courts below is a finding of fact based on the evidence
available on record.
7. The two Courts below have also recorded a finding that the suit
accommodation is required for the plaintiff / public institution for
furtherance of its activities like construction of hostel for staying
of children belonging to poor admitted for learning and for
establishing of training centre for their self-employment and as
such, the suit accommodation is required for furtherance of its
activities within the meaning of Section 20(d) of the Act of 1961.
Such finding is also a finding of fact based on the evidence
available on record, recorded concurrently by the two Courts
below which cannot be said to be perverse by any stretch of
imagination.
8. The next point raised by Mr. Kotecha is that the suit was not
properly instituted, therefore, it was not maintainable and it could
not have been tried.
9. Though the defendant has raised such a plea, but neither before
the trial Court nor before the first appellate Court any express
plea has been raised, therefore, it has not been tried and no
finding has been recorded and as such, this Court has no
privilege of looking into the said pleading and finding. Therefore,
for the first time, new plea cannot be permitted to be raised by the
defendant, as plaintiff's witness Anil Kumar Chandrakar (PW-1)
has clearly stated that on society being dissolved, it is being
managed by the Additional Collector, Raipur and he was
authorised to file pleadings and record evidence. As such, this
plea cannot stand and accordingly it is rejected.
10. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit which has
rightly been affirmed by the first appellate Court. I do not find
any substantial question of law for admission of the appeal and
no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal.
Accordingly, the second appeal deserves to be and is hereby
dismissed in limine without notice to the other side. No order as
to cost(s).
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
Soma
