A t lc' 0 % INTHE HIGH CQURT OF TUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P. N0. J 2-73 /2004 / PETITIONER PLAINTIFF RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS ^ ^^ Sundar Devi Aged about 72 years Wd/o. Rambharos Chouhan R/o. Chouhan Bada, Link Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil & Distt. BUaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1] Urmila Bai, Aged about 72 years ^i^ Wd/o. Chandrika Prasad Shukla, •y 3] Narayan Prasad Shukla Aged about 60 years, S/o. Late Chandrika Prasad Shukla Bhagwati Prasad Shukla Aged about 42 years, S/o. Late Chandrika Prasad Shukla All above R/o. Link Road, Near Bukhari Petrol Pump, Tahsil & Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-22 3TI^T^)T f^rf^w^r $b^Icb^f^T ^^Nt^^s^-^ 3si 3^T ^t 1^1^^, ^Tn<H4l^, [c|diy^< ^l ^^f^ ^l^l^ll »l^|Ch-----------j^q- ^QO i^re^ 3T^T^RTTW^rf?cT Judfae afler 16-3-2005 On a mention being madej Mr. Manoj Parajpe, couns< Mr. Shree Kumar Agraw^ Gupte, Advocate for respondentej The petitioner has preferr^d the Constitution of India, questior the order dated 16-4-2004 passejd Civil Suit No.S-A/2002 in the cas|& whereby, the learned Civil herein and ordered that even respondent No.2 herein, defendi the gen^ral law and in the affi^ defendant No.2, defendant No.2| under Section 12 of the Chhal (hereinafter referred to as 'the of the petitioner herein is rejecteif Brief facts leading to filint herein filed a suit for evictjon property mentioned in the plaint| respondent No.1 died, therefore,| as legal heirs of respondent N|; petitioner herein moved an app| striking out the defence of the| arrears of rent and the rent duriil provisions of Section 13 (1) o1| allowed and defence of the reslpo ^l^fd^l^ ^l^dT^'te^^^K ^3Tf^q'3TT^T A4f) |the matter is taken up for hearing. ^j for the petitioner. I, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anand Kumar |No.2and3. this writ petition under Articte 226/227 of ing the legality, propriety and correctness of by the 3rd Civil Judge, CIass-1, Bilaspur, (n of Sundar Devi vs. Urmila Bai and others, rejected the objection of the petitioner strikjng outofthe defence of defendant/ Int No.2 is entjtled to defend the case under tavit of evidence which has been fited by |has not raised any defence available to him tisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 ;t'), therefore, the objection dated 21-2-2004 of this writ petition are that the petitioner igainst respondent No.1 in respect of the However, during the pendency of the suit, respondents No.2 & 3 were taken on record >.1. During the pendency of the suit, the ication under Section 13 (6) of the Act for respondents as they failed to deposit the ig pendency of thesuit in compliance of the the Act. Ultimately, that application was Ipondents hereinwas struck out vide order A-^-^C-^---—- XI-HC-22 3Ti^T^T f^Tt^3n^T st)^ich^rf?<T 'i'} •^ S^ '^INK'1'4, «>Tfl^l<l(o, I^diy^i 3t 1^1 Msich <+W^fT$b^|ch ----------- ^py 200^ ^ ^l^l^dl^K^N trie inilially dated 27-1-2000, thereafter, the| prove her suit. However, when their evidence and they failed to 18 Rule 4 of the C.P.C. an obj^ herein that the respondents are| defence has already been strucl^ beginning was that even thoug|i respondent No,1 herein, was iniliall the disputed premises, howevjer, purchased the disputed premises|< favour of Chandrika Prasad ShuKI father of respondents No.2 & 3 terminated as the house in que^ Shukla. In order to prove that tenant between the petitioner respondents want to adduce I have heard learned count Learned counsel for the respondents are not tenants o|F entitled to convert the tenancy SLJJ which has been adduced by the i|es proving the title, therefore, the s^m< circumstances, the order impug^ed onthe point On the other hand, learn^d defence of the respondents ha^ respondents have denied the re|l Ghi^f^i41'i ^i^^T^te^^^K ^3Tf^T3TT^?T jplaintiff adduced her evidence in order to turn of the defendante came for adducing flle evidence as per the provjsions of Order ^ction was raised by the plaintiff/petitioner not entitled to take that defence as their out. The stand of the respondents since Chandrika Prasad Shukla, husband of inducted as tenant of the petitioner in later on, Chandrika Prasad Shukla |on 27-12-1966 by a registered sale deed in :la, husband of respondent No.1 herein and h|erein, and from that date the tenancy stood ^tion was purchased by Chandrika Prasad ^hereafter, the relationship of land lord and jand respondents came to an end, the to that effect. ^el for the parties. >etitioner argued that in the guise that the the petitjoner, the respondents are not it into title surt and the evidence in question i|espondents through the affidavit amounts to is not permissible under the law. In the is not in conformity with the settled law evid^nce s^ime Senior Advocate submitted, it is true that been struck out, but since beginning the ationship of land lord and tenant between _Lcft^fe^ XI-HC-22 3rar ^ii^Kn^i, ^T{1^4i<o, (®idi^^< OT^T ^^^ *4(*<^ir$h*<l<h_^^.(^7^./ •••••••••••«•••»•»» •(» Td^ ^ 200 <^_ 3TT^T^)T f^Tf^^n^T $t)^i<=ti^cT -c' ^TT^T ^TTS^K ^cT - ^-t the petitioner and respondents as| the predecessor of the respond^nts in title by name Chandrika Prasad Shukla, and fromi that date the te to prove that there is no relation|ship of land lord and tenant between the parties from the date of execi respondents are entitled to adduc ttion of sale deed i.e. 27-12-1996, the evidence to that effect. Having heard leamed courjsel for the parties, settled law on the point is that in the first instance, in ord^r to obtain a decree of eviction against the tenant under the Act, the plaintiff| i.e. relationship of land lord anc| eviction decree, land lord is requi^ available to him under Section 1 2 of the Act. When defence is struck out between the plaintiffand the defe| fact he can adduce the evidencel the land lord has tried to convert as to how the landlord and tenantl and tenancy, if at all was tbere fc| In the present case, the defence) chi^<n41<i w^ff^'te^t <Ri^i< ^^Tf^TT^TT^T the house in question WQS purchased by ancy came to an end. Therefore, in order is required to prove the privity of contract tenant. Further, in order to obtain the edto proveany of the grounds for eviction under Section 13 (6) of the Act t|iat means all the defence available to the tenant under Section 12 of the A|ct, are not available, and the tenant is not entitled to adduce evidence on thi^ point. However, the defendant can cross examine the plaintiff and moreov^r he is also entitled to take defence which is available to him under the g^neral law i.e. the defendant is entitJedto adduce evidence to the effect thjat the relationship of land lord and tenant hdant does not exist. In order to prove that Of course, some times it seems like that ^he teriahcy suit into a title suit. But, in fact this is notthe position in the presjent case. In order to establish thatthereis no relationship of landlord and teijiant, the defendant has to adduce evldence relationship does not exist between the two etween the two, how that came to an end. of the respondents is that on 27-12-1966, the predecessor in title of the ijespondents i.e. Chandrika Prasad Shukla y_A^^C-^ XI-HC-22 3:sr «^i*ii<n'4, yiTf1^<Kg, fsjdiy^< [W^5(ch HW^[ ^qi^-"--'"----4- ^ 200 3:n^T^)T f^TW3:n^T rf?cT $hffT^^ Soma ^l^l^dlW^T purchased the house in question ^N^^I-I TfmoTf^ te^" <RI^|< ^3:rf^R'3TT^T through a registered sale deed from the husband ofthe petitioner herein fr<j»m whom he took the house on rent, and from that date the tenancy came t^ entitled to adduce evidence to thal herein is not sustainable at law. In conclusion, 1 am of the| petitioner herein before the trial C| an end. Therefore, the respondents are effect and the objection of the p^titioner opinion that the objection raised by the ourt has rightly been rejected by the trial Court. 1 do not find any jllegal|ty and infirmity in the order impugned. Therefore, the writ petition is li^ble to dismissed and it is accordingly, dismissed. I Consequently, M.(W.)P.Not1141/2004 and I.A.No.5098/2004 stand disposed of. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge (Ift^^f<3^)