6 '^^^.^^n.^^y^w^^''^-''' INTHEHIGH COURTOFJUDICATURE AT.BILASPUR fcHHAmsGARH) sh,g|eBench WRIT PETITION,(227) N0. ""' ' ' /2011 WRIT PETIT10N UNDER ARTICLE 227, CGNSTITUTION OF INDIA, PETITIQNERS DEFENDANTS t. •• piese ^aisd ^Hi) 1^)) ^•--^'^ 1. Suresh KumarBhojwafti, S/o Govind Ram, Aged 50 years, 2. Rajesh Bhojwani, S/o Govind Ram Bhojwani, Aged 37 years, Both R/o Gondpara, , Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS pLAir'TrFps IttilU.U'. r.^'^ 1. AshokKumar Soni, S/o Kamta Prasad, Aged 52 years, 2. Saje.ev Kumar @Raj Kumar, S/o Ramcharari, Aged 38 years, Both R/o Sadar Bazar, Gondpara, Bilaspur (CG.) i8 \ sii^r^r R-II.+ sn^i ^*l ^ff^cT 3-/ TST "i||4|c|-ll, »Ti1<-i'IS. (°«11'My 31 MIHW VlWtl SV^f J^fSR^ ^> .f- (95-:f-y t^».2-.&f^-lh ^..................^.....^.....^ ^^ ^^Sl' 3ii^?r wnw ^ifei SB: Hon'bteShri Manindra Mohan S5-OS-2011 22)7 exe<;ution possess|on 1&1 Shri Sanjay Shyam ^rawal, Heard on admission. This peUtion under Article 22|7 ftled, questioning e correctness, 28/03Q011 and 1^04/2011 pas^d l Vide order dated 28iW2011| issued warrant ofpossessfon in has been executed and the An application under Section petitionerefludgmentdebtorfor reeallj of possession of ths accommodaUoi| appllcaUon for urgent hearing, vide| leamed ExecuUng Court had directe|d of application uncterSection 151 CP(p Leamed counsel for the decree passed in favour ofthe in appeal, the judgment debtor was two months and before that, he the provislons contained in Accommodation Control Act, 1961, tenant for a period of two months could not be executed before expiryl decree passed by the appellate C( apptication for restoration of along with an applicaUon for urgent| cjounsel fbr the petttioners. petftj^ner decrto coukt SedUon posses|sion chl<lhT1<H'T 'WT^ff "^ 'fe^t <Fal'^f< ^T aiPOT sil^l Shrivastara.J. of the Constltution of India has been llegalfty and propriety of ordera dated tty the Executing Court. (Annexur® P/6), ttie Executlng Court <rf decree. Therrafter, the decree has been handed over tothe plaintiff. CPC has been moved by the !of order dated 2^/2011 and restoration to the prtitioner / judgment debtor. On Impugned order dated 18M/2011., the the case to be listed for conskjeration •<[; on 2»6/11. submite that even after the judgment holder by the Trial Court was affirmed ^ntiUed to retain possession until expiry of not be evicted. He submits that undw 12 (1) (f) of the Chhattegarh |the land tord is not entiUed to evict the |under any cireumstances. The decree foftwo months from the date ofjudgment t>urt. He submlts that even though an was moved before the Court below |hearing, the mat|pr is hot being ctecided [TT^'^.f<^ Jj. CB^^J :4 agpnf EaKlseAN1ttSueIl°WB •yo p9Sods|p<||euBS! uoB»sdaifl ultat »|eaMesjqi^} popad e UJIBIM A|<jeja(ajd epjaep j)8ijs Buipued sj odo tS(. uojp^s vno@ pauieei 8i|»'ieAemoH •uo|tnad| 1 'ssouBiaunajjo iMBsejoie aifl p <ii®i4 si I|O!I<M uojsssssod jo uoBB.iojsai JQ( UB pSAOUi SBt| .leuogBsd syi pue J0(q|ap ussq sey uojssessod eifl 'i.i.Oie/S/gZl fo IUBUBM jepun peinwxa SBM sejo^p |^||! peiis^uoa uoipipsynf ^o sssoxe ui eiltje iisptio stft ifflM ajaMaiui 01 p®|<w eyi »BM» s*®ldjauojised eiu joi B^ltEhfiijlE^ >l5»to]> |?.9J h (Uhlh ]-(kU)l>llfc •MOJJOiuoi Aq Adoo peyiyeo IsuoBBAiesqo piessjoje ain qijAft [jepjo sift 10 Adoo p td|soej 10 9}ep eift 'tsejlJBS etfl }B uoiieoiidde siiff jspun uoiieofidde eift ajsiim 'MOfeq \W/A siifl ujeyeiue 01 psujiaui iou IUB ui 'ej^ejeyj. •uoB6i9p!8uoa Buipuad OdO 1-SI. uoipeg jspun uoiiBoiidde tusiuBpnl/JsuoBRsd a^wo^ ussiei |p8}Bp japiio 01 tuensind 'uoissassod aifl jaye teifl s( puy | tewA •MB|8iB.iepun B^ll! A(qed|Bd si qoiqM 'ijnoo Buiinoaxg ^! sq Aeuu ZZZ aisy^.^CT uopipsynr l«|sunoo peujeei '9J<ysjai|i pue A|JBS ^ ;iJ^;^^»";<!-*»L"^s;-; <-•;• BajB^ltllBWtt^lloS''' Etdaaa cajft iblhlB B^U£'hlt-y lita^UE .B^fJ ,1^ •^•^^w'- '•-••••: IZ ^li.........^........n.................i&Ut2&lidttUt QU^^^'CSS^T^'"^^ ~ ^tlL j^US >T;H.II->|S) 'ait&vis. 'iziau2U2±tes- ZZ-3H-IX