§:@ $l§a§€§liE Whwi}; §ax ‘W-gki‘a £ éé? r U3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH w.P. Nofyiry 12005 NER 9g;p’“/Pradeep Das, Aged about 35 years Dendent é/w V e" v. .C S/o Late Bhola Nath Das R/o R-3, Vinoba Nagar, ,Bilaspur (C-G-) VERSUS RESPON DENT Piiiff ant Smt. Sangeeta Gupta Aged about 45 Years, W/o Arun Gupta, R/o R-2, Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) (u, W RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF ‘CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIO fe g XI—HC-22 1 lor fhe petitiener, n Rao coun' Tim pEIitionm‘ has pm ma Congtitutiari of lndia qi 24,6‘2005 pagsed by learm Wimm 13V C‘ DC learnec‘i Civil JurigE‘ flleéi petitioner under t1 ‘IIQFEFdLAUQ of I‘mm Qmt l‘m 9 agaubt u patmmmr hm 6111 Bi‘iaf facts 1€admg to fu 1161‘ei11 {116d a Civil Suit No.€ c1aim4‘1g the petitioner to be ?ara— 1 0f the plaint and also a to 4 m1 the gmuncl that all the thmugh a registered sale deed has fJed the wuf n etatVmF question elonge to the reapo the petitloner herem wae the i of wn‘tten statement the petit Section 10 of fhe CFC for sfa’ 0n the Wounii that the pent filed a C1Vi1 suit against declaraiion and injunction, N04A} GOO but the same yv Judge 31. 1.1004 plaintiff] respondent hexein h: and 011 ( ferred thie petitian under Articie. 2'27 of teetionimz the {egajiu of ordei? dated d 5th Civii Judge, CiaSS—i Bibspur has rejeeted the a pheatev Hf Hie on 10 of fhe CFC f0 st: mg the [V2004 filed by the respcndent herein 11g of Thig eeiifion cue that respendeni 3A] 12004 against the petitiener herein her tenant in Shop No. 1 mentioned in gaiust the ether tenante of Shep Nos. 2 four shops were 501d 13V Smt. Uma Das dated 14.6. 1999. The petitioner hei‘eiii 1n demrmg ghe 1 Li that the shep m ndent herein she 1s in peeeesenm and enant of respondent herein, After iiling Loner herem $ed 81'1 apph‘cation under Ving the further proceedinge Of the suit Laner’s mother namely Suit. Uma Dag the plaiietifffrespondent herein fer which was recieterec‘i ae Civil Suit 1s chemissed bv the Additional Distuct after That judgement fhe is iiled the suit fer eviction against the. x XI-HC—22 ww,m,m WW Wmuuazk'J-ASLQg—nuuai - 200 m3WW ,1, ‘ $qadqm§WIW maum petitioner herein} defen&ant and oiher pergans, W119 are in possES$ion of ofher $110133. It has been melitioned in the application that the patiz’iona hcrsin, bCing thE $011 0f Smt‘ Uma Das, is in possession 0f shap in question as ths Gwnex and \m that shop his motor 'garags is théré. It has fuifheer been mén‘rimmd in ma applicaticn That bemg aggrieved by the curler of dismissai of suit, Smt. Uma Das has preferred aia appsa} before th£s Court which is sti1} pending therefore, issue involved in both the suits is same amd decision of this Court. 1‘11 the previous suit w:11 effect the decision of presem suit; However, learried Civil Judge rejected The application Vida impugnai order on the ground that no document has been files}. regarding filing ef appeal aim} also ol1 the grou 11C} that eariier suit filed by the mother of defendantfpelitioner herein was for declaration and injunction, whereas the emit in question is for aJTears of rem and eviction. Therefom, the issues involved in both the. suits are not dixectiy‘and sub stsntially some. have hearcl learneci coupsel for the pefitioner on admission, Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Eiecision of appeal going to effect the dec1sion of present suit, merefore, me proceeding of the suit filed b3 the. lesyondent herein ought to have been stayeé by the learned )Civi Juége under Section 10 of the CPS. Pi‘o'v‘sions of Section 1C of the CFC envisages that “71b oomt shaii proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also‘di‘reezly and substmmalz’y‘ in issue in a previousZy instituted suiz hailiieen the some parties, or bameen parties ureter whom they or (my o them ciaim Ziti9aiip under the some title t where such suit i5 i») w emtz’n suit Even otherwise; E the other of peiitioner heren’i succeeds in the appeal pending before ti is Couit, then she wig he engtled for XI-HC—22 . 3a 2mm,wW WW 200 mmmm - WWW§EQhW «Ag ,_ ‘ %Wm in ihe same or any oiher Coma‘ £11 India hav£ngjurisdi¢iim1 3'0 gi‘anf i329, relief chimed. " NOW th€ qu6stien is W’Ethg: thf. $31165: invalvcd in tha Suit I‘lled by Smt. Uma Das-mothm' 0f pétitioner herein f0: declaration and injunction iS directly gmd Subsimtially in iSsue, in the pi‘éSEnt suit“ Earlier $uit file:i by Smt. VUma Das agaiilst the regpondent herein was all-:1 fof declaration and injunction 1'11 respect 0f the dis‘gu’tal shop all-:1 othcr shops on th€ ground that when 5hr: said‘ths propsrty to mspondcm 11€rein the Shops 1‘11 qusstion W€re {lot inciuc‘md in tha sale a% émfby fraud thegé shops were iilcluded 1‘11 1116 Said sak deeé and this‘ suit was dismissed aftex full trial. Therefore, the iSsue involved m this suit waa Whether the shop hi queation arid other shops Wefe sald by Smt. Ume. Das-mother of petiiioner herein or net t0 the respomjent herein 0r whether by commith‘ng fraud on the mother of the petitioner herein these shops wem included in the Sam eale deed. Wheréas, in the present sun the issue involved is regarding CLG. Aceorrlmodaticn Control Act, 1961. In this case the trial court is required to look into the facts whether the landloni and tenant relationship is existing between me parties and whether the yespondeni hemin is entitled i‘ 1* eviction decree against the peiitioner herein in View of the proqisio s of Section 1’2 of the Accommodaiion _ Control Act. Therefore, the ssues, which are to be decicleri in the siiit and the issues, i hich were to be decided in the previous present suit, ere neither directly nor substantiahy involved in the eviction XI—HC—22 :§a2mmmLa%mM@f$mwg WW nil far that purpcse the eviction be grayed for mdefmite period. 3f Ssction 10 of rim CFC an: net ”111 my vigw, the ma} Court has not gaiity in passing the impugtmd orckr. mainxainable. same iS liable to be dismisaeéL axld it is accordingly dismissed at {1m admission Stage it‘delf. Consmucntiy, M. (W .) P. h alga (iismiSsed. ‘ Sd/— L.C.Bhadoo ; Judge pegsesSion of suii shop$ 2 proceedinga of %his suit cannot H6110; thE provisionS t. attracted m this matter and committed (my infirmity or‘ i116 As such, writ getition i$ not N0. 2658f05 alld LA. N0.5194!05 ( %%%% unww§m 5' ' ’ .Bm’levf. W E1 200 mmmw _ WW§W®ER J‘i/ $Wm,