^^.^1...- ws-^s^^^" Si®^'fi;.,u>..'*'"".'?S?yTI;^-1"" ' ^y" @e7^ SERORE HQN'BL-EHlGHfiOURTQFGt-IHATTISGARHAT Bll-ASPUR WRITPETITION^NQ.?1^^ 72009 -—^E?'"^' --:.' :• :'.: Firm DeviGhand Sphanlal, Proprietor Sudhir Kochar, S/o Late SQnraj Kochar, aged about 36 yeaFS, R/o Bharatmata Chowk, Rajnandgaon (C.G.)' :',•.:. .^^ ParasrnalOstwal.S/ol.NeShri r • Amarchand,agedabou!f62years,R/o Sadar Bazar, Rajnandgaon (G.G.) WRITPETITIONUN[3ERARflCLB227©F;THE©©NSTTIT tC:)!NI •...•<QF::mDlA.".''';'.1'' . The above named Petitioner respectfully submits as under:-_- •ai 39 XI-KC—''S ?ST'':^P7I^FI, yTii-i'l'S, iqcll'H'it _...^J>C'2-^7J>.(NO.L2-?&r^ siwlra3:' (, 'j'yT STT^T 3hMt4) ?B'TWaf?T 3?!^s! Shri Anoop Majumdar, Heard on adinission. The iastaiit petition is ilirected again.st fhe pdrt offhe order dated 4-4-2009 passed by ^he District Judge, Rajhaadgaon ia Civil Suit No. 18-A/2007 whdreby aiid whereunder an application filed by fhe petitioner heicic^ having any suitable altemati.^ which is reqiUTeiaent ofl Accommodatiou Control Act stateinent, the petitioner pl{ having a suitable alteraativel therefore, tlie leairied trial petitioner to enter into the ^'^'^ ^n'y^fl ^ f^et ^P^^Tr q?.3ffiTt;3n^T Adv. for the petitionei~. dated 25-2-2009 for productioii of inap regardiiig Sadar Line S}ieet No. 49-A Plot No. 255 aad the appUcation under Order 14 pule 5 dated 25-2-2009 for framia; additional issues have been (^isinissed by the trial Court. The inam. contention r^ised by Shri Majuradar is that fhe plaintiff /respondent has ^ileaded ia his suit fhat he is not ke acconuiiodation to fulfill his need, Section 12(lj(^ of the C.G. [briefly "the Acf) and m the written :aded fhat ia. fact, fhe plaintiff is aGCoiniaodation in Sadar Line and, pourt ought to have pennitted fhe house to prepare fhe inap for the purpose of proving his defen4e or the plamtiff ought to have been directed to produce fhe sain^. In fhe same way, he subnuts that the issues proposed were nec^ssary for just decision of fhis case. <1-HC—''8 '•'87 alI^T *'-!'* TST ^l.ii^^, •y-ll-'-'<l'o, ?siC!l'Htl,< •^TSi^R, 0;-lTOTIre, !<siC!1^4< ^C^T)^- WI, 200 sn^T-q^? ( TOTOT'Hitt 3'???' iiS It is not in dispute fh! is the burden of the plaintij altemati.ye accoTT)Tnodation lead evidence to discharge| rebut the same ia favour and, therefore, leamed impugned and no illegality it in passed fhe impugned oj It is weU setded pnnc| of its supemsory Constitution of India, the order passed by fhe perversity, iUegaUty orjurisc^ ofthe record, whicli is not il| The petition is liabl^ hereby disBlissed. oltthe Tribunal jurisdjiction should Cotrt '^^f^P'f^T .'RW?H ^ "t^T<t <P-s)^^ ^? 3TfgiT3iI^I ^t iiuder Section 12(l)(fl offhe Act, it to prove non-availabiiity of suitable ^nd foi fhat, fhe plamtiffwill certainly his burden with an opportanity to petitioner at the trme of evidence has rightly passed the order I/ uregularity has been conunitted by td.er. Iple of law that this Coiirt, in exercise imder Ardcle 227 of the refraia itself from. iaterfermg with below except in such cases where iictional error is writ laree on fhe face fhe present case. to be disuussed and fhe same is Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge