c^- ^ Sin|i»S»aeti IN TI-IE HIGH CQyRI' OfmJUDICafiCT'UREAT BILASPUR fei-tWftTtisciAiyiy W. P.NO/^C>^^OF2004 PETIT20NER/ OEFENDANTNO.l Rajshri Emporium through — Hundraj Ambawani, aged about 78yrs, S/o Gagan Das Ambawani, R/o Main Road, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar [Chhattisgarh] VERSUS RESPONDENTS PLAINTIFF 1. U.dharam Moolchandani aged about.,43 years S/o Dhanraj Moolchan- -d-ani, R/o Motilal Nefary Ward, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar [Chhattisgarh] ^»-»-' .y 1«"'si^ti ^ ^ii^'v* 1'1']'W;;-''';.|1' RESrOWDENT iyERE E»AfllTNQt2 ;w^€^ ^^y ^y^' '^s^ ^ 3annil-ur-ratiman Khan- S/o Hazi Sardar Khan R/o Sardar Vrfard,Takui- R6ad,JagdalRur, Distt. Bastar [Chhattisgarh] 3. First Civil Judge Class-I District Court, Jagdalpur (Bastar) CG. WRIT PETITION tMMSERARTICl.E 226/227 OFTHE CSMSVmWlCm^OFSKe KSOK^SU&HeEl^^ff ^ IN- . : ;N»tUttE: : ;:OR:'. l:y.€ERBI^f^l^.':,:^M»N)Sa^ RROIMBI1-IOW...AfS »;''-Cn'HER;^iiSiE»BlSn^^ WRJ^^ WRES^XOM <M SXttECflQN^^^^^^C^^ OREffiRS: .; :• '. :.' • .. " : 1: \ • The petttioner, named at»oye, mosf respeGtfutly begs to submit as under: PARTICULARSOiFTHEaPETI31:0NER: As mentioned in Ihe Causelitle?abQve. Ifi ^iB*®^ WWWWIKR '3^ 'qraxnq, ®-A-a'la®,fai'ii'yy .^j^Jp.A^C^(~|~o.4" 1 i r 200 dil^J '•R^(^P^^) S^^R fl^^ ^lt^l the coutisel 20-12-2004 Shri Sahjay K.Agrawal, The petitioner who is g petition being aggrieved by the^ passed by the First Civil Ju|< whereby the learned Civil Jud| petitioner herein, directed Rs.9,000/- from Januar^, 200^ herein. I have heard learned Learned counsel for th^ start-ement the petitioner heges| tenant of respondient No.l question on rent from responde|lt is not entitled for the rent issue Nos. 1,5 and 6. Therefor|e; ought not to have directed fl respondent No.l, rather the depositing the rent and after have passed theorder for whose favour the Court decTde4 rented premises. (jounsel for the petitioner. ,. ; ^enant in a shop has preferred this wf|j;t: lorder doted 3-7-2004 (Annenxupe-P%@$ Pge Class-I in civil suit No.lO-A/2003^ |e after allowin9 the application of t^e^ petitioner to pay dmount sf •reii#: to June, 2004 to the respsndent Np.t .1/plftti-ff 'ldl'&l'ti^^afl^f^f Is'-.fl'tlaRSK' ^'a^'-f^^l for'thepetitionerondeimission: petitioner argued that in his writt'en |n raised an objection thad- he is not.ia . l-1e tpok the rented premises in Mo.2, therefore, the resporidenf No.l based on that the tria! Court framed |e, in view of these issues 'the •trial Court ^r payment of arrears of reht to thie jrial Cpurt ought to have directed for |leciding the issues, the Courtought to of rent to theconcerned person in that he is the landlordof the disputed S:IS"l :^^-^:'--^ payn|ient fiiia'KS—fS7B—.9!W»—WBBei. llli.lil - ;'^.'i1: ftsy!:' ^^^^•^^^®£i^iteii;'3-£?\&^M&£i^^£^^^^^^^^ mawx SuKiH^'S ll •'u ,li "lia®ii^|iK|; ,.!l:'lRJi3g83 I^^S^^fes'»^3S^i^^''^'Ks^^S^sS I-HC—78 sf^v w R'li'* ^s^ 3n^?r sb*ricp ^n? •<ii<)id<i, tf'tilwKa, T^Mi'yy,'*, ^iaHCTt »MI<ft"' " ^^'^ ' """ "^^ sn^i Tra^T ('yfjoi^) Twttit 'gfta an^i puc^ned ; I have peRusecl the impucjn Nb.l; as averreci in the plain) purchased therented premise^) herein under the registered sa| mentioned that efefendant No.3 the defendant No.l/petitioner rentto the respondent No.l her) for that purpose respondent' the petitioner- herein through then the petjtioner herein had the petitioner in his written respondent No.l herein had No.2 on 3-1-2002 andresponden) himon 11-1-02. Respondent No4 However, resppndent No,2 he( (Annexure-P/3) in which he herein that he had sold the writt-en statement of the petiti the original landlord responder^t- admits his landiord and has from respondentNo.2 and re; transferred his shop to the +i<i(<"ii)-) iwcff 4 feet <Rnt<i< ^arRn sii^i order. The case of the respondent h, was that on 3rd January 2002 he from defendant No.2/respondent No.2 |e deed, In para-6 of the plaint it was yide notice dated 11-1-2002 informed herein that hereinafter he should pay iin from the month of January 2002 and N^l also gave registered wr-itten notice to ijegistered post on 15-3-2002, but even fiot paid the rent, whereas, the case of Sttrtement was that it is denied that the purc|iased rented premises from respondent ^ No.2 herein had not given any notice to Ishad also not sent notice on 15-3-2002. ihein had filed his written statement the plaintof the respondent No.l tb him. Looking to the above plaint, i^ner herein and respondent No.2 herein, No.2 herein to whom the petitioner stdp-ed that he took The premises on rent :sp4ndent No.2 is not disputing that he has hespbndent No.l herein, rather in his adNifted sB(}p !!' ii£i.:<;::i ^';'.'l SS'I sai m. .u IB, Bia i! , __ __ 'S^! •^IIIKTl^, Si'Ql'M'IS, {°«1]<H"j,< 311^1 q? (^•li* ^ww g^ ^iiw a***w ,•"; L-s' '."' 4 WWtl'tb*<|l»» 200 sn^i 'q?^ (1]?f^^> wiw^iSa aii^i 3 admitted rtio rerit pay^ib writt-en statement he has premises to the respondent question of receiving of the theentitlement of respphdent above facts, I do not find any counsel for the petitioner. I provisions of sub-sections (3) &i Control Act, 1961 which ehvisag! in sub-section (1), there is any whom the rent is payable, the with the Court the amount section (2), and iri such a case,| the amount in deposit until tHgj .'•!•-', order for payment of the sam^ Court' is satisfied that any dis| been raisedby atenant for Court' may order the defence' proceed with the hearing of th^ As has been mentioned that he purchased the rente^ registered sale deed dated 3-1- petitioner herein by respondei] Nti,2 also sent a notice to the wial^i«iH^iffipeff "^ Fs*<i|t ^3tf5PT3il^. that he has-t'rgrisferredftherented- i.l/therefore, in fact, as^ar as ths is concerned, there is no disputeabout No.l to receive the rent. In vievu bf : iie substance in the drguments of learned jn thi? connection, if we look into tlife |(4) of Section 13 of theAccommodatiw) ^sthat 'if, in any proceeding referred to dispute as to the person or persons to ^ourt may direct the tenant to deposit le by him under sub-section (1) or sub- |no personshall be entitled to withdraw jCourt decides the dispute and makes an j.'? Sub-section (4) envisages that 'if the [)ute referred toin sub-section (3) has which are false or frivolous, the againsteviction to be 'struck out and suit.' ' ^ •' : • :. ,•:: ^tbove, the case of respondenf No.lwas premises from respondent No.2 vide p002, notice of the samewassent tothe |it No.l on 15-3-2002, even respondenf detjtioner herein on 11-1-2002 andin the r^asQns ^ •''^r^f Sm--{'f^VIK9K. 'WSSSK XI-HC—78 an^iqq R'lH WT 3)1^1 gnw •T; -^ ^' ^' rgarve "s^'SITETR^I, •s^NTre, fecii'yy »n*icii (R*II<R ^- 3n^fT'q^?(Tpf39^) ^nwateiai^t VUTttStL. 'Offnnn/4on+ •W[. 200 ^rafertN •wicff'?'fe'st <[«itsi<. ^aiRmaii^r !'e of respondent No.1 that he hds petitioner, but even then the That bonafide dispute remains the person entitled to receive t-ransferred the rehted premises to the petitioiter herein is claiming respondent No.2 as his landlord, therefor^, in the circumstances, it cannot be said afterpleadings ofthe parties that who is Ithe rent. As far dd the case Ijiws cited by learned counse! for the petitioner viz. Manaram V. O^nprokash and others report-ed in 1990 JLT 197 and Nathulal ©upta In the result, I do not V. Phattandas & another report-ed in 1974 JLJ 434 are concern^d, on the facts, these cases are not applicable to the pre,sent case; find any substdnce in this writ petition, same is lidble to be dismissed a^id it is accordin^lydismissed. 1-lowever, it is made clear that the trial C while passing the final judgmen-l atirtshall not be influenced bythisorder Sd/- ___ L.C. Bhadoo Judge v^v i^. '-S^v.^ ^