9.. 4. $? >\\ '«TRITPETITION !'a27| N0. 3657 GF- 2011 Plainriff Detendailt Alok Kuiuar Dewaagan, S/o Shri. Raru Kuiaar Dewangaa., aged about 27 years, R/o In front of Jag Kirana Store, Bramhaapara, Raipur, Tahsfl and District Raipur (C.G.). M/s. Durga Paaa Masala, through Proprietor, Diaesh Kuinar Agrawal, S/o Shri Dashrafh Lal Agrawal, R/o Dashrafh Nnvas, Agroha Society, Post Raipura, Police Station Diadayal Upadliyay Nagar, Raipur, Tatisil aad District Raipur (C.G.). T.P.Sharma, J. Present:- Shri P.P. gahu, Advocate forthe petitioner. Respondent not noticed. (Passedoa 11/07/2011} 5y this petiuon uitder Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 7/5/2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by 4th Civil Judge, Class-I, Raipur (C.G.) whereby 4th Civfl. Judge, Class-I, Raipur (C.G.) has rejected the appUcation filed under Section 13(6) of th.e Chhattisgarh Acconiniodation Control Act, 1961 fia short 'fheAcfi in civU suit No. 34-A/2009. Shri P.P. Saliu, leamed counsel for flie petitioner is beard. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that plamtiff is a cwner and laudlord of the suit preinises and respondent was under obligation to deposit fh.e rent in acconlaace witli Section 13 (1) ofthe Act having such his defense is Uable to be struck off in. Section 13(6) ofthe Act. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner furfher subiuits that respondent has failed to deposit inonfhly rent as per provisions of Section 13(1) of tlie Act, Court below has coniiuitted fflegaUy by disinissing the application filed on behatf of the petitioner oiily on the ground fhat respondent has pleaded that at the uistartce ofpresent petitioner he has paid the rent ofone nionfh to one Heera n o, 13, Adwani thereafter he is regularly paying rent to Rajesh Singh Thakur whoni as per his pleadiag petitioner has sold fhe accominodation to Heera Adwani aud Heera. Adwaiii has sold fhe accominodation to Rajesh Singh Thakur. Learaed counsel for the petitioner also subniits that aforesaid facts are required to proof but respondent bas adinitted fhe iiiitial relationsbip of tlie laiidlord fherefoi-e he was under obUgation to deposit such rent. Order impugned perused which reveal fhat consideruig tlie pleading of botli fhe parties and clear pleadiag of respondent that he has regularly payiag rent presenfly to Rajesb Siagh Thakur Coiu-t below has dismissed fhe applicati.on filed uiider Section 13 (6) of fhe Act. In aU cases of non-corapliance of Section 13(1) of tbe Act Court is not under obUgation to struck off fhe defense of tenant but iftenant has failed to deposit fhe rent having under inala&de witii contuiiiacy or deUberately violated the provisions fhen defense of tenant is required to be struck out. Iii the present case after considering tlie pleading of the parties Court below has disinissed the appUcation filed under Section 13 (6) of ttie Act while disniissiug the appUcation Court below has not coiiunitted any iUegality requiring aay iaterference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Consequenfly, petition is liable to be disinissed and is hereby disinissed at fhe staae of inotion. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge