-(.-,^! IN THB HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR.'< CHHATTISGARH Secoiad Appeal No.4^ of2005 ^.^ APPELLANT/: ^Nou-appUcaat) RESPONDENT/; icaat) ^Shsit Khande LaUt Kala Shiksha Samiti, Gaadhi Chowk, Raipur, Through its Secretary N.G. Rai, S/o Late Shri Gagaa Chaiid Rai, Aged about years, R/o 515, Bairan Ba^aar Raipur, TehsU aad Distnct: Raipur, Chhattisgarh. - Versus - ^" Smjit Sen, S/o Late Shri Paritosh Sen, Aged about 4 1 years, R/o Gurukiil Parisar, Kalibadi, Raipur, Chhatdsgai'h. MEMO OF SBCOND APPEAL UNDER SBCTION 32 OF THE CHHATTISGARH ACCOMMODATION CONTROL ACT. 1961 JL XI-HC-78 3:n^T^ R-li<=h cT8TT3:n^?T$b^lGb ^ ^ l^ 'W. t »Tm^ll S<b<41«sh 3^T ^Nld4, ^TflH4l?, fs|dW^< ^^. ^.A..^^^ A fr^7^- 200 :9? 3TI^7T q^RR1 (^i^^) ^RITW^T^TI^T 26.9.2006 Shri Sanjay K. Agrawai ie4 Shri Satyendra Sahu iear^ rned counsei for the appeliant. ed counsei for the respondent. Heard. ^rr^d .2005 Ipas The appeiiant has prefer the Chhattisgarh Accommodatio| Act) against the order dated 2Q.I Civii Appeal No. 33/2005 by whic|h against the order ^ated 8.7.^ Raipur in Case No. 3-9-(4)/200^ heid that there is a iandlord tenail the respondent and it has been dl| water and electricit/ facilities ^ S^efore disruptlon, ti!I a decree Co.urt and til! then the appe!iant s8 Learned counse! for the a by the respondent under section with a finding that'there ls.no appe!!ant and the respondent section 38 of the Act were termi under section 31 of th.e-Act was appeiiate Court whiie reversing tt tenant re!ation existed between cbl^fd41-l WRTf ff te^<Rl^l< ^^ri^TW^T thls second appea! under sectlon 32 of Control Act (hQreinafter referred to as ,2005 passed by District Judge, Raipur in the appea! preferred bythe respondent ssed by the Rent Controlijng Authorty, -05 has been allowed and It has been ^t reiationship between the appeiiant and rected that the appellant sha!t restore the |hich were avaiiable to the respondent ^f evjction is ..pas-sed by the competent lal! not interfere with said facilitles. )pe!iant submjts that an appiication fiied |8'ofthe Act was rejected by'the Tribunal ^ndiord tenant relationship between the |and consequentiy proceedings under ihated and agalnst that order an appea! pied by the respondent and the Searned i|e finding of the Tribunai that no iandiord :|ie parties and further hoiding that such XI-HC-78 HIH^I Sh+licb 3^ '^NK'1-4, y>Tfl'MII<o, fst<<1l'y'4,< ^t M..t<^4 P^. ^PT 200 3-ll^t ^5|cb (yii^cic^T) ^n^T^T^i<=h ^TTOT^sh^Jch ^ -^. ^w ^FcTT^R: ^f?cT 3:T[^ST reiationship is there bet/veen th| section 38 of the Act without c| section 38 (3) of the Act. On the other hand learnedl in repiy to the appiicatlon under categorically denied that they havj eiectricity connectlon in the si| cbi^f^^^ ^iH^iT ^f f^t <r5i^i< ^3Tf^T3TT^T ^m has aliowed the appiication under |>nductlng any inquiry as envisaged in counsel for the respondent submlts that section 38 of the Act the appe'iant has 3 interfered with the water.connection or lit premises and In the Sight of the submissions made by the appe!|lant in their repiy the impugned or'der cannot be questioned cn the groujid of inquip/. i have heard learned coun^el for the parties, perused the impugned order as aiso the pleadings ofthe 1'esp.ective parties before the tribuna!. So far as the flndings re^orded by the. appe!!ate- Court that the reiationship of Sandiord and tei|iant existed between the parties are concerned, counse! for the.app^ order. So far as the Qround tak'er) Court could not have passed any of the . Aot without conductjngl pieadings of the respective parti| admltted in hls reply to the ap|| essentia! sei-vlces availab!e to th| the impugned order dlrecting the |!Iant does not dispute that part of the by the appeiiant that the first appeSIate ^rder on an appllcation undefsection 38 inquin/ is concerned, Sooking to the ^s and the fact that the appeiiant has ^ijcation that he has not, disrupted the ^ respondent in hls tenanted premises, ^ppeiiant to restore essentiai sep/ices in his tenanted. premises cannot be (||uestioned. P.T.O. ^' XI-HC-78 3TI^T^T^icb cTSTT3T1^?Tsh^ich \. S&- ^ ^ ^ +1IH^I a»*(T<sb 75ET ^|<41d4, ^rftffT?, fa^Kiy ^^ ..S.i^..<<t.fo.<g./o$T* ^ 200 STliRT q^cp (^tg^T) ?^[TW:^riN3:n^i Thus, the appea! is dispo^ed avaiiabie to the respondent in the| the respondent shai! be restored | sen/lces titi he is lawfafiy evicte<] The appea! is thus dispose|d chi^T<n41ri <4i^dT^te^rfw'^i^ ^>3:rf^T3TI^T of with a directlon that the sen/lces accommodation in question occupied by |and they shail not interfere with the said »ya competent Court. of. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O. ^