JUDGMENT : 1. I.A. No. 03/2022, Application for amendment, is allowed. 2. The appellant is directed to incorporate the same. 3. Heard on admission. 4. This appeal has been preferred by the defendant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2021 passed by the District Judge, Bastar, Place Jagdalpur in Civil Appeal No.11-A/2008, whereby, the lower appellate Court, while affirming the judgment and decree dated 02.09.2008 passed by First Civil Judge, Class-I, Jagdalpur in Civil Suit No. 1A/2005 has dismissed the defendant's appeal by partially modified the decree. The parties to this appeal shall be referred to hereinafter as per their description in the trial Court. 5. The brief facts, as reflected from records are that the plaintiff-Ramchandra Rath instituted a suit claiming decree for eviction of the defendant – P. Reddeyya on the grounds enumerated under Section 12(1)(e) and (g) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short "Act, 1961") by submitting inter alia that the defendant was put in possession of the suit house situated at Rajendra Nagar, Jagdalpur as described in red colour marked as “ABCD” in plaint Schedule “A” at the monthly rent of Rs.500/-, which was enhanced subsequently to the tune of Rs. 800/- per month in the year 2000. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendant has stopped paying rent to him since October, 2001 and has failed to deposit the arrears of rent of Rs.19,200/-despite requests being made in this regard. Further contention of the plaintiff is that the suit house is in dilapidated condition and not safe for human habitation and pleaded further that it requires bona fidely for residential purpose of his family members and suitable and alternative accommodation for the said purpose is not available to him in the concerned city. 6. While contesting the aforesaid claim, it is pleaded by the defendant that the condition of the suit house is neither dilapidated as alleged by the plaintiff nor was it required bona fidely by him as he is trying to alienate the same to someone else. The claim is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 7. 6. While contesting the aforesaid claim, it is pleaded by the defendant that the condition of the suit house is neither dilapidated as alleged by the plaintiff nor was it required bona fidely by him as he is trying to alienate the same to someone else. The claim is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 7. The trial Court after considering the evidence led by the parties, arrived at a conclusion that the defendant, who is occupying the suit house at monthly rent of Rs.800/-, has failed to deposit the same since October, 2001 and the plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to get the arrears of rent of Rs.19,200/-. It held further, while considering the notice dated 03.02.2007 (Ex.P/10) issued by the Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur to the plaintiff that the condition of the suit house is dilapidated and is unsafe for human habitation and held further that it requires bona fidely by the plaintiff for the residential purposes of his family members. In consequence, decreed the claim on the grounds under Section 12(1)(e) & (g) of the Act, 1961. 8. Being aggrieved, the defendant has preferred an appeal and the lower appellate Court, while meeting its reasonings only with regard to some of the issues, like Issue Nos.3 and 7 to 9 framed by the trial Court, has affirmed the decree for eviction on the ground under Section 12(1)(e) and (g) of the Act, 1961. Being aggrieved with this judgment and decree, the defendant has preferred Second Appeal before this Court which was registered as S.A. No. 260/2009. The said appeal was admitted by this Court on following question of law:- “Whether the court below was justified in not considering the submissions made by the appellant in respect of the contentions pertaining to 12(1)(e) and (g) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961?” 9. The Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment and decree dated 05.03.2021 has allowed the second appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree. The operative part of the judgment is reproduced below:- “16. In view of the principles laid down in the above referred matters, the findings, as recorded by the lower appellate Court affirming the decree of the trial Court on the grounds enumerated under Section 12(1)(e) and (g) of the Act, 1961 even without dealing with the relevant issues in this regard, cannot be held to be justified in any manner. In view of the principles laid down in the above referred matters, the findings, as recorded by the lower appellate Court affirming the decree of the trial Court on the grounds enumerated under Section 12(1)(e) and (g) of the Act, 1961 even without dealing with the relevant issues in this regard, cannot be held to be justified in any manner. Consequently, the substantial question of law as framed is answered in “negative”. 17. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 29.04.2009 passed by the District Judge, Bastar, Place Jagdalpur in Civil Appeal No.11-A/2008 is hereby quashed. The appeal is accordingly directed to be restored to its original number to the file of the concerned appellate Court, who in turn, shall decide the appeal afresh after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The parties are hereby directed to remain present before the concerned appellate Court on 05.04.2021. No order as to costs.” 10. Thereafter, the First Appellate Court has decided the appeal vide its judgment and decree dated 15.03.2021 affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court with partial modification. The learned trial Court has passed the decree that the plaintiff is entitled to get possession from the defendant of house bearing Sheet No. 35, Plot No. 7/8 currently modified diverted Nazul Sheet No. 50A, Plot No. 52 area 1800 sq.ft. out of which constructed house in 900 sq.ft. The plaintiff is also entitled to get the rent after adjusting the rent which has been deposited by him. 11. Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned First Appellate Court has passed the order contrary to the direction issued by this Court in its remand order dated 05.03.2021 and the learned First Appellate Court without considering the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of C.P.C. has passed the judgment. The judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court is against the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Prasad Singh Vs. S.P. Shrivastava (Dead) through Legal Representative, reported in (2017) 2 SCC 415 and in case of Somakka (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. K.P. Basavaraj (Dead), reported in (2022) 8 SCC 261 . As such, substantial question of law is involved in this case. S.P. Shrivastava (Dead) through Legal Representative, reported in (2017) 2 SCC 415 and in case of Somakka (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. K.P. Basavaraj (Dead), reported in (2022) 8 SCC 261 . As such, substantial question of law is involved in this case. It has also been contended that the learned Courts below are not justified in granting decree under Section 12 (1)(g) & (1)(e) of the Act, 1961 without pleading and prove. 12. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the respondent has also entered appearance in this case and would submit that once the learned First Appellate Court has discussed the evidence, material on record therefore, the contention raised by the appellant that the learned trial Court has not followed the direction of the remand order made by this Court in violation of Order 41 Rule 31 of C.P.C. does not deserve to be accepted. He would further submit that the learned First Appellate Court after appreciating the evidence, material on record has passed the well reasoned order, which does not deserve to interfere by this Court. The findings recorded by the learned Courts below are neither perverse nor contrary to the records. He would further submit that no substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal which is sine-qua-non for admission of the appeal. Hence, he would pray for dismissal of the appeal. 13. To substantiate his contention, he would draw attention of this Court towards judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Manjula & others Vs. Shyamsundar & others, reported in (2022) 3 SCC 90 and judgment of Madras High Court in case of M.S. Mohammad Arif Vs. M.Devadoss, reported in (2013) (4) CTC 690 and judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Kameshwar Prasad Gupta & others Vs. Samsuddin [Second Appeal No. 251/2010 (decided on 28.02.2020)]. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 15. To consider the submission raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it is expedient for this Court to extract provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of C.P.C. which is as under:- “31. Contents, date and signature of judgment. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 15. To consider the submission raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it is expedient for this Court to extract provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of C.P.C. which is as under:- “31. Contents, date and signature of judgment. The judgment of the Appellate Court shall be in writing and shall state- (a) the points for determination; (b) the decision thereon; (c) the reasons for the decision; and (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled, and shall at the time that it is pronounced be signed and dated by the Judge or by the Judges concurring therein.” 16. Learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently submit that as per Order 41 Rule 31 of C.P.C., it is necessary for the learned First Appellate Court to determine the points for determination then only he should decide the appeal without determining the points is nullity and make the judgment in operative and would pray that since the Order 41 Rule 31 C.P.C. has not been complied with, as such substantial question of law exist and appeal deserves to be admitted. To substantiate his submission, he would draw attention of this Court towards judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Somakka (supra) wherein it has been held at paragraphs 33 & 34 as under:- “33. From the above settled legal principles on the duty, scope and powers of the First Appellate Court, we are of the firm view and fully convinced that the High Court committed a serious error in neither forming the points for determination nor considering the evidence on record, in particular which had been relied upon by the Trial Court. The impugned judgment of the High Court is thus unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside. 34. The next question which arises is that where the judgment of the Appellate Court is being set aside on the ground of non-consideration of the evidence on record, the matter would normally be required to be remanded to the First Appellate Court, whether in the facts and circumstances this case requires a remand. 34. The next question which arises is that where the judgment of the Appellate Court is being set aside on the ground of non-consideration of the evidence on record, the matter would normally be required to be remanded to the First Appellate Court, whether in the facts and circumstances this case requires a remand. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find that the suit was instituted in the year 1991, more than three decades ago; the evidence discussed by the Trial Court is neither disputed nor demolished by the learned Counsel for the respondent. As such, we do not find any good reason to remand the matter to the High Court. We are of the view that in order to put a quietus to the litigation and relieve the parties from any further harassment, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and confirm the judgment and decree of the Trial Court to the extent it relates to item no. 3 of Schedule ‘A’ property described in the plaint, i.e. to say that the appellant and the respondent would be entitled to ½ share each in the said property. The Trial Court shall accordingly proceed to draw out the proceedings for final decree of partition.” 17. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that since the First Appellate Court has elaborately discussed the evidence and material placed on record and the factual foundation led before the trial Court was not rebutted by the defendant even if the point determination is not reflected in the order but the learned First Appellate Court has applied its mind and discussed each and every submission raised in the appellate stage, the learned First Appellate Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity, which warrants interference by this Court. To substantiate his submission, he has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Manjula (supra), wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held as under:- “8. Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) provides for filing of an appeal from the decree passed by a court of original jurisdiction. Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC provides the guidelines to the appellate court for deciding the appeal. Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) provides for filing of an appeal from the decree passed by a court of original jurisdiction. Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC provides the guidelines to the appellate court for deciding the appeal. This rule mandates that the judgment of the appellate court shall state (a) points for determination; (b) the decision thereon; (c) the reasons for the decision; and (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled. Thus, the appellate court has the jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. It is settled law that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings. The appellate court’s jurisdiction involves a rehearing of appeal on questions of law as well as fact. The first appeal is a valuable right, and, at that stage, all questions of fact and law decided by the trial court are open for re-consideration. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reflect conscious application of mind and must record the court’s findings, supported by reasons for its decision in respect of all the issues, along with the contentions put forth and pressed by the parties. Needless to say, the first appellate court is required to comply with the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and non-observance of these requirements lead to infirmity in the judgment.” 18. The First Appellate Court while affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court with certain modification has given its finding on all the issues framed by the learned trial Court and has discussed the evidence, material on record and provisions of the Act, 1961. Learned First Appellate Court while affirming the finding on issue No. 1 ¼D;k oknh LokfeRo edku fgLlk v]c]l]n 1988 fn;k]½ has recorded its finding that the defendant has himself admitted before the Rent Controlling Authority that he is tenant of the plaintiff and accordingly finding on Issue No. 1 has been affirmed. Similarly while affirming findings on Issue No. 2 ¼D;k mDr ifjlj dh fLFkr]½ has given its finding that Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur has sent letter (Ex.P/10) to the plaintiff wherein it has been observed that the said house is not safe for residential purpose and directed for vacating the same. Thus, he has affirmed the finding on Issue No. 2. 19. Similarly while affirming findings on Issue No. 2 ¼D;k mDr ifjlj dh fLFkr]½ has given its finding that Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur has sent letter (Ex.P/10) to the plaintiff wherein it has been observed that the said house is not safe for residential purpose and directed for vacating the same. Thus, he has affirmed the finding on Issue No. 2. 19. Learned First Appellate Court while affirming findings of the trial Court with regard to Issue No. 3 ¼D;k mDr ifjlj dk fdjk;k 800@&]½ has given its finding that the defendant has not paid the rent regularly, therefore, the finding given by the learned trial Court that the plaintiff is entitled for possession has been affirmed but while deciding Issue No. 7 ¼D;k oknh] fdjk;k jkf'k 19]200@& dk vf/kdkjh½ has recorded its finding that the finding given by the trial Court is not in confirmity with the law and modified the same that the plaintiff is entitled to get difference of rent after adjusting the rent which has been deposited. This clearly speaks that the learned First Appellate Court has examined the evidence, material on record and thereafter decided the first appeal and all the aspects of the matter has been taken by the First Appellate Court while deciding the appeal. 20. Learned First Appellate Court while deciding Issue No. 4 ¼D;k oknh dks vius iq=ksa ds fy, mDr edku dh okLrfod vko';drk gS\½ & Issue No. 5 ¼D;k oknh mDr oknxzLr edku dks] izfroknh ls vius ifjokj dh okLrfod o ln~Hkkfod vko';drk ij] fjDr djkus dk vf/kdkjh gS\½ has given its finding that findings recorded by the learned trial Court is not correct as the plaintiff has some other residential places are available. The learned First Appellate Court has given its findings against the plaintiff for ejectment as per Section 12(1)(e) of Chhattisgarh Accommodation Act and this Court while remanding the matter has directed the learned First Appellate Court to deal with the relevant issue on the grounds enumerated under Section 12(1) (e) & (g) of the Act, 1961. The learned First Appellate Court has reversed the finding with regard to Section 12(1)(e) of the Act, 1961, but affirmed the findings with regard to Section 12(1)(g) of the Act, 1961 as evident while affirming the finding on Issue No. 2. 21. The learned First Appellate Court has reversed the finding with regard to Section 12(1)(e) of the Act, 1961, but affirmed the findings with regard to Section 12(1)(g) of the Act, 1961 as evident while affirming the finding on Issue No. 2. 21. The learned First Appellate Court while deciding the other issues particular Issue No. 8 ¼D;k oknh] izfroknh ls nkok lafLFkr fnukad ls okn edku dk fjDr vkf/kiR; izkIr djus dk vUrorhZ ykHk ds :i esa 100@& :i;s izfrfnu izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\½ has also reversed the finding while recording its finding that there is no clause for grant of mens rea Rs. 100 per day, as such, it has decided Issue No. 8 against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant. 22. Learned First Appellate Court while deciding Issue No. 6 ¼D;k izfroknh orZeku esa lsokfuo`Rr gks pqdk gS\½ & Issue No. 9 ¼D;k ih0 egs'k gh okn edku dk mi;ksx djrk gS\ vkSj bl ukrs D;k og vko';d i{kdkj gS\½ has also considered the material on record and has given a finding. This clearly shows that the learned First Appellate Court has applied its mind, discussed the evidence, material placed on record and thereafter only, the judgment and decree has been passed. The contention raised by learned counsel for the defendant is that in absence of point of determination, the judgment and decree, deserves to be set aside, cannot be considered as the First Appellate Court has entirely discussed the evidence, material placed on record and thereafter passed the order. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Laliteshwar Prasad Singh & others Vs. S.P. Srivastava (Dead) through Legal Representatives, reported in (2017) 2 SCC 415 has held at paragraph 12 & 13 as under:- “12. As per Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, the judgment of the first appellate court must explicitly set out the points for determination, record its reasons thereon and to give its reasonings based on evidence. Order XLI Rule 31 CPC reads as under: “31. Contents, date and signature of judgment. As per Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, the judgment of the first appellate court must explicitly set out the points for determination, record its reasons thereon and to give its reasonings based on evidence. Order XLI Rule 31 CPC reads as under: “31. Contents, date and signature of judgment. – The judgment of the Appellate Court shall be in writing and shall state– (a) the points for determination; (b) the decision thereon; (c) the reasons for the decision; and (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled; and shall at the time that it is propounded be signed and dated by the Judge or by the Judges concurring therein.” It is well settled that the first appellate court shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for decision. However, it is equally well settled that mere omission to frame point/points for determination does not vitiate the judgment of the first appellate court provided that the first appellate court records its reasons based on evidence adduced by both the parties.” 23. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of G. Amalorpavam & others Vs. R.C. Diocese of Madurai & others, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 224 , has held that if entire evidence has been considered and discussed in detail, conclusion and findings, are supported by reason though no point has been framed, there is substantial compliance with provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of C.P.C. Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held at paragraph 9 & 12 as under:- “9. The question whether in a particular case there has been a substantial compliance with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC has to be determined on the nature of the judgment delivered in each case. Non-compliance with the provisions may not vitiate the judgment and make it wholly void, and may be ignored if there has been substantial compliance with it and the second appellate Court is in a position to ascertain the findings of the lower appellate Court. It is no doubt desirable that the appellate court should comply with all the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. But if it is possible to make out from the judgment that there is substantial compliance with the said requirements and that justice has not thereby suffered, that would be sufficient. It is no doubt desirable that the appellate court should comply with all the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. But if it is possible to make out from the judgment that there is substantial compliance with the said requirements and that justice has not thereby suffered, that would be sufficient. Where the appellate court has considered the entire evidence on record and discussed the same in detail, come to any conclusion and its findings are supported by reasons even though the point has not been framed by the appellate Court there is substantial compliance with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and the judgment is not in any manner vitiated by the absence of a point of determination. Where there is an honest endeavour on the part of the lower appellate court to consider the controversy between the parties and there is proper appraisement of the respective cases and weighing and balancing of the evidence, facts and the other considerations appearing on both sides is clearly manifest by the perusal of the judgment of the lower appellate court, it would be a valid judgment even though it does not contain the points for determination. The object of the Rule in making it incumbent upon the appellate court to frame points for determination and to cite reasons for the decision is to focus attention of the Court on the rival contentions which arise for determination and also to provide litigant parties opportunity in understanding the ground upon which the decision is founded with a view to enable them to know the basis of the decision and if so considered appropriate and so advised to avail the remedy of Second Appeal conferred by Section 100 CPC. 12. It has been categorically recorded by the High Court that the First appellate Court had considered the evidence led on behalf of the parties and has given finding to come to the conclusions arrived at. It noted that the lower appellate Court had independently considered the evidence and had given different findings on the issues framed by the trial Court and on the basis of the arguments which were advanced before it. It was further noted that there was detailed discussion giving reasons for affirming the order of the trial Court. It noted that the lower appellate Court had independently considered the evidence and had given different findings on the issues framed by the trial Court and on the basis of the arguments which were advanced before it. It was further noted that there was detailed discussion giving reasons for affirming the order of the trial Court. Learned counsel for the appellants had urged that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable as the plaintiff was the diocese represented by its procurator. It was submitted that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as was prayed for in the suit. This point was not urged before the High Court and, therefore, it would not consider necessary to go into that aspect. Judged in the background of legal principles set out above the judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity.” 24. Now coming to the facts of the case, it is quite vivid that the learned First Appellate Court while affirming the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, has discussed the evidence, material place on record and after applying its minding, given its findings. These findings are neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Even the judgment cited by learned counsel for the appellant in case of Somakka (supra), is not applicable to the present facts of the case as in that case, the High Court has not considered the evidence by the trial Court neither did it deal with the statement and other documentary evidence on record and only on bald statement of the respondent which according to it was mentioned in the order of Land Tribunal that the respondent was jointly cultivating the said land along with his father held that it became a joint family estate and accordingly reduced share of the appellant to 1/4th from ½, therefore, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held in paragraph 33 that the High Court has committed a serious error in neither forming the points for determination nor considering the evidence on record in a particular which had been relied by the trial Court then only the order was set aside. But Hon’ble the Supreme Court has not remanded the matter as the litigation is pending since 1991. 25. But Hon’ble the Supreme Court has not remanded the matter as the litigation is pending since 1991. 25. This is not a situation in the present case as the First Appellate Court has elaborately discussed the oral and documentary evidence and thereafter passed the judgment and decree. Thus, there is substantial compliance of Order 41 Rule 31 of C.P.C. 26. Upon perusal of entire evidence, there is no substantial question of law requires to be formulated for hearing of this second appeal. There is concurrent finding of fact with regard to issues framed and contentions raised as such no substantial question of law is involved in the present case. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in C. Doddanarayana Reddy (Dead) by Lrs. & others Vs. C. Jayarama Reddy (dead) by Lrs. & others, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 659 has held at paragraph 28 as under:- “28. Recently in another judgment reported as State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dayal, it was held that a concurrent finding of the fact is binding, unless it is pointed out that it was recorded de hors the pleadings or it was based on no evidence or based on misreading of the material on records and documents. The Court held as under : “When any concurrent finding of fact is assailed in second appeal, the appellant is entitled to point out that it is bad in law because it was recorded de hors the pleadings or it was based on no evidence or it was based on misreading of material documentary evidence or it was recorded against any provision of law and lastly, the decision is one which no Judge acting judicially could reasonably have reached. (see observation made by learned Judge Vivian Bose,J. as His Lordship then was a Judge of the Nagpur High Court in Rajeshwar Vishwanath Mamidwar & Ors. vs. Dashrath Narayan Chilwelkar & Ors., AIR 1943 Nagpur 117 Para 43).” 27. This court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal without there being any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Existence of substantial question of law is the sine-qua-non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended Section 100 of the C.P.C. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant failed to point out any substantial question of law which may arise for determination in the case. 28. Existence of substantial question of law is the sine-qua-non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended Section 100 of the C.P.C. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant failed to point out any substantial question of law which may arise for determination in the case. 28. In view of above, since no substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant case, this is not a fit case for admission. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed at motion stage itself under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 11 read with Order 42 Rule 1 of CPC. No order as to costs. 29. A decree be drawn up accordingly.