w & ly}^} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0?-76^/2005 PETITIONER .x^ L^/fe^..^ ^My v^y ,^?r/' ^•<-^^>~ <€^Qy ~^y RESPONDENT/ PLAINTIFF Ajay Sharma, aged about 45 years, S/o Shri Satyapal Sharma, R/o D-1 Pushpak Apartment Infront of Govt. Higher Secondary School Chotapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS r^to Prakash Dawda, aged about - 53 years, S/o Makhan Lal Dawda, R/o - 8 Geetanjali Nagar, Sector - I, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTCLE 227 OF TH^CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-22 3TI^T^)T f^ri^w^i ^RT^^rf^T 3:^T^I^Kyt^,,^Tfl^41<o, [^crtMy © 3T[^T '-ra^l ^l+K-ll $h^!^^..^..^..A'^^ f^^[ ^TT^T^TT^K^cT 13-7-2005 Heard Shri Kishore Bhaduri by the respondent hereih, has pr| <=t)i^f<n^Ti WT^iY ^*te^ ^RTH: ^)^lRi^3TI^T counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner, who is defeijidant in the civil suit No.l8-A/2004 filed sferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India fc^eing cggrieved by the order dated 7-5- il District Judge, Raipur in the said civil nce has been struck out under Section 13 2005 passed by the 12th Addition<|i suit whereby the petitioner's defe|r (6) of the Chhottisgorh Accommod^tion Control Act. I have perused the petjtion. Copy of the plaint has no1| been fjled by learned counsel for the petitioner alon9 with the petition, owever, he submitted that the suit is for* arreors of rent ond ejectment. From perusal of the impu9n^d order it shows that the respndent has filed the suit agojnst thepetitione^ for ejectment of the house ond also for arreors of rent to the amount of R|s.l,99,379A and dama9es. It seems that the petitioner herein filed written iQndlord and tenant between th thereof he has alreody paid an] observed that since the plQintiff ^ ejectment and rent has not beej statement ond denied the relationship of s parties. It is mentioned that the petitioner herein has purchased t^e house from respondent and in token amount of Rs.1,75,000/-. The Court as filed the suit for crrears of rent and n paid, therefore, the defence of the petitioner is struck out. I do ro^ find anf ille9ality or infirmity in the XI-HC-22 3:TI^T^)T f^t^3TT^T ^TT^^ri^T Barve w ¥' 3^T ^i<qi<rtq^ ^Tfl^^Ko, [®<<rtl^y 3TT^T M5jcb <TTR^[T$fr^|cb ^ 200 f^T^S 3TT^T ^RITW ^cT ^.,^0 ^ triat impu9ned order for the reason suit for ejectment and crrears of herein is a tenant of respondent i^ tenancy, but the respondent hosl therefore, the rent has twHb®gh| rightly struck out and that meons) under the Chhotti^arh Accommod^tion Control such I do not find any substance ir| dismissed and it is accordin9ly disn^i However, the petitioner is Q^ him under the law. Consequently, M.(W.)P. No. stand disposed of. cbl<M?d41^ W^rf ^*fe^t ^T^K ^3Tf^T3:n^T the respondent herein has filed the rent on the ground that the petitioner which the petitioner herein denied the filed the suit claiming to be landlord, deposited, hence the defence has been the defence wailable to the petitioner Act has been struck out, as this petition and the same is liable to be issed« liberty to raise the defence avaibble to ^30l/20Q5 and 1.A. No.5511/2005 dso Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ('ftf^^-)