IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. 227 No. <S ^oC /2008 ^^ ff^ PETITIONER (PLAINTIFF) ^ ..<'w ^y ^y^y^ ^•^'..y"" Smt. Mithlesh Sharma W/0 Shri Dinesh Sharma, aged about 42 years, R/0 Brahmanpara Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) \'* ^ '>;„ RESPONDENT K VERSUS Smt. Bodhni Bai Sahu W/0 Shri Hira Lal R/0 Gandhi Chowk, Rajanandgaon, (C.G.) WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA '"^. s XI-HG—78 *11*ICT1 ^Hl<*» ~3~^r T^ii14l<rl<Ll; ^til<y4i<o, f^Kni^y ^^.C>>.t.).....6s?..i......W, 200§ ^TT^T 'q'^T ( ^?^^?) ^T ^IFi ^§T[^it^T^^W I^TW^T^T 3TT^I S.B. Hon'bie Shri JusticeNJ^AbrwaI 14.05.2009 Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, Advot Shri Abhishek Sharma, Adv4cate With the consent ofthe parti| The petitioner/Plaintiff respQndent/defendant; seeking e-| herself to be the owner of the including bonafide need, default ij tenancy. The defendant did not choosel with provisions of Section 13 (^) Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the filed an application under Sectionl impugned order dated 31.10.2008,1 application of the petitioner sayi landlord and tenant has been chalt necessary to deposit the rent and Against the said order, the instant p| plaintiff/petitioner. Shri Soni, learned counsel contended that the order passed b1 matter is covered by the decisionl ps, the case i.s heard finally. [filed a suit against the ^iction of defendant, claiming |suit house on severa! grounds payment of rent and denial of ^Frf^^T 'WT^ff ^ fe^ iN^K ^3ti^H3?i^T ?ate for the petitioner/PlaintifF. for respondent. to deposit the rent in accordance of the C.G. Aecommodation |Act'). The landlady, thereafter 13 (6) of the Act, and by the the trial court has rejected the ^g that as the relationship of (enged and denied. It was not (efence could not be stmck out. ^tition has been preferred by the appearing for the petitioner the trial court is ba4 and the \ . passed by tfae High Court of ^r8^. t^x' Ar^'XI-HG—78 ^T^r^i^fe • ^^ ^ST ^t^H'4, yiTi1y<o, f®i<ni-<-i^< WWff WW* "^ 200 ^I^T TR^ ('i?i^^) Q^ Madtiya'Fradesli in case ot-Sinf7 Singh Chandel (reported in 2.000 | deseiTes to be remitted back. Per contra, Shri Sharmaj supported the impugned order an(| any order imder Section 13 (3) cj Section 13 (6) ofthe Act cannot b| passed by the trial court is well rea| be dismissed. I have heard learned counsell the pleadings and order impugned As per provisions of Secti<| obliged to deposit the rent in a sui) of service of summons. If in such | ofrent, quantum ofrent or aiTears) required to decide the dispute as the Act. Ifany proceedings referre^ 13 there is any dispute as to the is payable, the court may direct th| the amount payable, by him unde| (2) ofSection 13, and in such a c^ vvithdraw the amount deposit until makes an order for payment ofthl ^rafa^f ^T^ff ^ ^S ^T^K ^.^TH^M )anlcata Devi Verma Vs. Jagdish ^' I) MPJR SN 40), and the matter counsel for the respondent, contended that without passing f the Act, the application under gmnted, and therefore, the order »onedand the petition deserves to appearing for the parties, perused terein. )n 13 of the Act, the tenant is within one month from the date a matter a dispute relatiag to rate of rent is raised, then the court is ^rovided under Section 13 (2) of to in Sub Section (1) ofSection or persons .to v^hom the rent 3 tenant to deposit with the court r Sub Section (1) or Sub Section \se, no person shall be entitled to [he court decides the disputes and p^i-son fe same. .Section 13 f6) provides XI-HG—78 ~3^r T<iNi<n^ ^til^^Ko, [®i<rii<4^< ^ITNCfT 91»*11<t» 'W^ 200 ^?r Tr^F (1[^3®f^) I^?W ^fN'3?T^I -9 "Wqf^^fh-S' ^R^* ^ fe^ ^T^K ^^tfW^I^T ttiat it a tenant tails to deposit orj pay any amount as required by Section 13, the court may order tl^e defence against the ©victionto be stmck out and shall proceed vvitl^ the hearing ofthe suit, appeal or proceeding, as the case may be. From a bare perusal of the would appear that there must be a | deposit or pay the amount as req| where an application under Sectiol duty ofthe court to see whether a ^ (3) has been raised either in t| application. Ifthere is any dispute or Section 13 (3) ofthe Act, the c^ decide the said dispute. Ifthe cou the tenant to make the payment OT\ then the tenant would be obliged passed by the court. It is only on f^ilure ofthe defendant to comply vvith the orders passed under Secticj order under Section 13 (6) ofthe A| the trial court that it had teken any | under Section 13 (3) ofthe Act. S\ Section 13 (3) is not decided, an ^ f6)neither can be allowed no can b| Sub Section (6) of Section 13 it |ailure on the part ofthe tenant to ^iired by the section. In a case ^ 13 (6) is moved, it is bounded [ispute under Section 13 (2) or 13 ^e pleadings or by a separate t'aised either under Section 13 (2) ^urt is duty bound and obliged to |1: decides the dispute and directs deposit the amount in tfae court, [o observe the spirit ofthe order |n 13 (2) or 13 (3) ofthe Act, the ^t, can be passed. It does not appear from the r^cord or from the order passed by steps to decide the dispute falling ? long as the dispute raised under •\ ^plication fiied under.Section 13 ? reiected. ^-y /. '•^^•••^XI-HG—78 ^it^r^i^fe | -^m I Sahu "3^r ^HId-M, y>ti1-M4i<o, fsK'll't-iy WRCfT^HIc^ -^ 200 ^n^T 'q^? (<i°3^<s8<i^) ._^ Tn'view ot tlie atoresald l5g opiniop^ t|i^ order passed by the accord.ihglY';s^t'.aside, as it has provisiohs-ofsection 13 (3) ofthe ^ In the result, the trial courtl raised by'the tenant relating to reiaj within the discretion ofthe tdal cd to deposit the amount. If such dir^ view of the language employed ir further direct that plaintiff shall n rent to be deposited by the tenant. order passed by the trial court w under section 13 (3), then the section 13 (6) may be laken up for With the above direction, thi order asto costs. '^mfei"4h> 'w^f ^ fe^ ifw?R ^.^t^^ir il propositions, in my considered trial court dese.rves to be and is lot taken into consideration the ^ct. |is directed to decide the dispute |ionship ofthe parties. It shall be |urt to direct the defeadant/tenaat tction is issued, the trial court, in section 13 (3) ofthe Act shall |)t be permitted to vvithdraw the [Ifthe tenant fails to observe any |hile deciding the dispute raised lajidlady's application filed under 4onsideration. petition stands disposed of No Sd/- N.K.AgarwaI Judge