t* BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B1LASPUR (C.G.) tj^CTJ®B©ii^f? SECOND APPEAL N0.^v / /2006 - ^. C. APPELLANT DEFENDANT RESPONDENTS PLA1NT1FFS ^ A,K. Ghai, aged about 40 5^ears, son ofLate P.N. Ghai, resident of T.D.S. Office, Smghpur Road, Shahdol (Afadhya Pradesh| VERSUS 1. Shah Aalam, aged about 36 years son of Sliri Rabi Aalain, resident ofSanfosMNagar, Raipur (C.G.j 2. ^' BUlu singh @ Tajinder Siagh, son of Shri Amrit Singh, resident of Station Road, Near Gurudwara, Cfahabra Rest House, Raipur 1C.G.) 3^ QF ^-^- C^^L /^.-f-- SECOND APPEAL UNDERSECTION |Tob OF THE CIVIL] ^^ ='—r =Z3 ^1/^J t>ROCEDURE CODE. 1908^ i i ^ XI-HC-78 HI*1<^1 5h*1icb 3^T r^|q|<rt^, ^TTl^^Ko, f®l<ni<M^< ^-..^^^?^A^ ^200 3T[^?T^ra^F (^cii^Gt^) ^rf^TW cfSTT 3TR?T ^TW 5^TTW ^fl^T 3TI^T 11.9.2006 Shri Abhay Tiwari, learned c<^ Heard. The appeliant has preferred t| the C.G. Accommodation Controi ^ct against the order dated 20ut July 2006 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal District Judge (F.T.C.) Raipur by wlj Tajindar Singh against the ordej Contro!!ing Authorifr^ Raipur in c| chi^fcn^-1 ^i^<viT^tel^t<Ri^i< ^3Tf^T3:n^T ; unsei for the appeilant. lis second appea! under Section 32 of \th No. 11/2005 by iearned IX Additionai ich the appeal preferred by Billu aiias dated 3/8/2005 passed by Rent ase No. 5/90(45-2004-05 has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the app^liant submits that the instant appeai has been preferred by the appeliartt purely on the foilowing :substantia! question of !aw: Whether the learned appe| deciding memo of appea! applicant No.2? Learned counse! for the apj Controiling Authority an appiication [under Section 38 of the Rent Control Act was preferred by the responc|ent No.1 Shah Aaiam arraying the present appellant and respondent ts|lo.2 as party w/ith a grievances that late Court was justified in |>f Biilu alias Tajinder-non" beilant submits that before the Rent the non-appiicants have illegally lo^ should be directed to open the application under Section 39 Ruie^ interim reiief for direction to open th^ lock. ^ked his tenanted premises and they same and in that proceedings an 1 and 2 was aiso fiied praying for :itla t& XI-HC-78 ) HI+1C11 arKT<»» 3^T ^TraT^T, ^Tft<141<o, f®t<rtl^^< ^.^..-..^/^o an^TqTaw (^ciI^<si<^T) ^n^T^T^TT^ cTSTT 3TT^T ^HT^F 11 i 18 \F J- ^RTTW ^Tfi^T W^T -z~ the The Rent Controlling Tribun^l application for temporary injunctior| The respondent No.2 preferred 3/8/2005 before the First Appellatt however the appellant did not pref^r tribunal. It is argued fhat though appeal against the order of the tri| upon the respondent No.2 to array fi of appeal and the appellate Court the impugned order without affordj VW' appeilant who had admittedly the o^| I have hearQ the learned c^ documents annexed with the rnateria! available on record the unl under:- (i)- The proceeding under Section 38 of have locked the should be opened to| tenanted premises (ii)- After hearing the orderdated 3/8/2005,1 iock be opened. (iii)" The present appellarf against the order of add parti|es <=hl^Id41^ ^l^dT^tel^'<Rl«l< i:?3:rf^T3n^T meftlo after hearing the parties allowed the and directed them to open the lock. m appeal against the order dated Court under Section 31 of the Act »r any appeal against the order of the the appeliant has not preferred any 3unal, nevertheless it was incumbent present appeliant as party in memo las committed an illegality by passing ng any opportunity of hearing to the |vner of the tenanted premises. ^unse! for the appetlant, perused the of appeal. From perusal of the iisputed facts may be summarized as conrlmenced on the appiication |he Act that the respondents tehanted premises and that lenable him to enter in the iive peacefully. induding the appellant by .Ithe Tribunal directed that the I: did not prefer any appeal the tribunal and raised a XI-HC-78 3-^1 ffmcTT^ttllch •^TPTI^PT, ^TH^^Ko, f^cni^y ^..^^.-.^/^,00 3< 1^1 ^5|ch (^ri 3n^T cpr f^rN) <TSTT3TR?T5h^lch ^ ^TTW^TW^T w~'-?" arid o^en grievance for the first| appeal under Section| Court committed ilieg^ without hearing the ap| (iv)- Since the appellant locked the tenanted No.T as he failed to tribunal directed to appiscation for tempor^ The appellant did not chalienjge |above attained finaiity so far as the| Itherefore the appeliant has agajn |the appea! preferred by responder |hearing the appellant. Thus appeai |any substance and same is iiabie to| |itself and accordingiy it Is dismissed.l In view of the above, i.A.No M.C.P. No. 1503/2006 aiso stands di cbl^Id11Tl-l ^l^dT^* teT^'<Rl<^l< ^3ti^T3T1^T time by way of the mstant 32 that the first appeliate tlity by deciding the appeal )e!lant. the respondent No. 2 had {|>remises of the respondent >ay the arrears of rent, the iock while dedding the |ry injunction. the above order and as such the present appeliant is concerned and c|ialienged it on technical ground that |it No.2 has been decided without jpreferred by the appeilant is without 1 be dismissed in the admission stage 2783/2006, IA.No. 2754/2006 and itposed of. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O.