.^-^ ,^ .^"' .^-••* ^-:^y 3 <p ^::>s"""r ^ IN THE HIGH COURT QF JUDICATURE ATBILASPUR W.P. N0. CHHATTISGARH \\^^ /2005 PETITIONER Non-ap^licant (Tenant), x RESPOplDENT ApplicaVlt (landlord) Gulab Provision Stores A partnership firm, through: its partner Kushal Chand Muth S/o. Gulab Chand Muth, Aged about 63 yrs, R/o. Malviya Road, Raipur, Distt Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS f ^ Dr. Satish Kumar Jain, Aged 57 years, S/o. Deep Chand Jain, R/o. Block No. 20/59, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA *ll*lrtl ^TT^P ^•oq-^iqirt^, U>TTI<{1<I<», RowyX ^f l/no'?/o$' 3n^^Tq?rR<ii<p ?CT3T1^$TaRPP sn"^?T q^cp (^cli^dc^) ^200 S^TT^R^Rd 3TT^$T 30.9.2005 Shri Manoj Parcxnjpe, coi^ Heard. and correctness of the ordei petitioner herein to cross-ex^ <pi<4[o<nri +ti*ioT^ffc^£i^^iK ^3ri^T3TI^$T nsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India questioning the legality, propriet/ dated 28.7.2005 passed by 1+ie Rent Controlling Authority, Durg in ^viction application No.lQ-A/90/2004-05 whereby the ftent Controtlin^ Authorit/ has closed the ri9ht of mine the respondent herein namely Dr. Satish Kumar Jain, who hims^lf is -tfie appljcant before the RCA and moved the application for evi^tion of the petitioner herein from the disputed premises. The notice of the petiti^n is not being issued to the respondent, as the issuance of notice is fi|rther going to delay the proceedings of evi'ction. However, if the resdondent still feels dissatisfied with this order, then he will be at libe^rty to move an appliaition before this Court for modification/ recallir^g of this order. The case of the petitiorjer is that the matter was fixed before the Rent Con+rolling Authoril , Durg for evidence of the respondent herein on 2^.7.2005, on 1+iat d^xte the applicant/respondent herein was present to adduce his evidence^ but counsel for the petitioner herein at Dur9 was notable to cross-exc^mine the appliccrst/respondent herein on SP/FS/2005-20,000 XI-HC-78 VJ-OTI <-qi^lrtA|, yTTl^-l-'ld, Rlow^ WI^T^^Tq? 3TT^5T'q?^ (yi^q<s) w^zoo OT^^T<CTRr|J<h ?CT3nt$T^HT^ ^ ^T^TW^rf^T 3T1^$T -2^ <pi<ijc5<ni +i!^oT^'f^^i ^Fjs^i^ ^3lf^T3n^$T the ground that the fiie was wi1+i t|ie counsel for petitioner at Bibspur, 2S the same was sent to him for filing a revision petition against the sarlier orders. Therefore/ counsel for the petitioner at Durg sought an adjoumment but the same was no^ allowed and right of the petitioner lerein to cross-examine the cp^elloint/respondent herein and his ^itnesses was closed. ] I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the pe^itioner argued that counsel for the ross-examine tiie respondent herein |the case was with Shri N,K. Soihu, petitioner at Durg was not able to on 2y.7.2005 os the main file of Advocate, who is practicing at Bilo^pur and therefore, time was sought, but the same was not allowed. He| is ready to pay the travelin9 ex| hierein Dr. Satish Kumdr Jain fromj other expenses. Having heard learned coun^ regard to the fact that the matter^ Authority, Dur9 is regarding evi<j herem is running his business an<^ then the same wiil going to ^eriou^ herein, therefore, the Rent Contr^ further submits that the petitioner icnses of the applicoint/respondent Delhi to Dur9 and back and also the ^el for the petitioner and having pending before the Rent Controlling tion of shop where the petitioner if the cross-examinGtion is closed sly prejudice the right of petitioner ^IIing Authority, Durg ought to have^ •x5 XI-HC-78 VJT^I '-qi^irt^, U>TTI^<I<?, f^rtw^ H1*1<AI ^^7^ 3TI^?Tq^? ((jcli^dc^) ^200 3TT^^T<PTRli<P ?CT3TI^$Td)^i<b r\ / K^ ^RTT^R^Tfin OT^^T ~^k granted at ieast two days time to j-he file from the counsel of the p^titioner herejn at Bihspur. In view of the above fac't) <PI<4lrt<ny1 +1I+1oT^'f^^ ^RJI^IX ^3ri^i=ran^?T the petitioner herein for colJectin9 and also the statement made by :ounsel for the petitioner herein t|iat the petitioner herein is ready to bear atl the traveling expenses of Ourg and back, I am of the opinion In the result, the writ petit ^>r. Satish Kumar Jain from Delhi to 1'hat the order must be quashed. on is atlowed. The order impugned is |iereby quashed subject to the cor^dition that the petitioner herein will ^ear the expenses, which are to b^ incurred by the respondent herein for trayelin9 from Delhi to Dur9 ar|d back as well as the expenses to be (ncurred for his stay and food. Counsel for the responc|ent appearing before 1+ie Rent pontrolling Authority/ Durg to Si ibmit cxn application indicating the ^xpenses, which are to be borne ^y the respondent for traveling stay ^nd food. The Rent Controlling A^thorit/ shall decide cxnd direct the ^etitioner herein to deposit tho^ expenses ond only thereafter, the ^espondent and his witnesses be su^moned and the petitioner herein be ^lso permitted to cross-examine tt^m. Consequently, M.(W.)P. No. disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. S814/05 <& I.A.No.8422/05 stands Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ^ ^o1^^'