^^^^!^^^^^l^€i'i^i. ^ v S^iBinch IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH) W. P. N0.4^ &OF 2004 PETITXONER/ DEFENDANT N0.1 Nana Lal Doshi,aged about 76 years, S/o Shri Hari Lal Doshi, R/o Main Road, 3agda!pur District Bastar [C.G] VERSUS RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTN0.2 3. Udharam Moolchandani aged about 43 years S/o Dhanraj Moolchan- dani, R/o Motilai Nehru Ward, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar [Chhattisgarh] Jamil-ur-rahman Khan S/o Hazi Sardar Khan R/o Sardar VVard,Takur Road, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar [Chhattisgarh] First Civil Judge Class-I District Court, Jagdalpur (Bastar) CG. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI. PROHIBITION AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS. DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR O^D£RS: sii^nv i<-ii<b ^w^n^TsRsffqr <sTct •*li'4lci<), aTii'H'ie, Rtclty^t WCT^N%-"-^^?>:]Q--"<&-340^200 3n^''(3?i' ('^f3i^?t^ l!«IIW«ffidSll^r 20-12-2004 5hri SanjayK.Agt'awal, c^ The petitioner who is a t petition beingaggrieved by the ^>*<(i[<?t6R*l 'WT^f ^ IS'^^^TF '^STf^HSn^T tunsel forthepetitjoner. inant ih a shop haspreferred this wrif order dated 3-7-2004 (Annenxure-P/6) passed by the First Civil Ju<|ge Class-I in civil suit No.9-A/2003 whereby the learned Civil Jud^ petitioner herein, dilf'ected th ^ after allowing the appljcatjon of th? ie petitioner to pay amount of renf Rs.6,000/- from jQnuary,2002| to Juhe, 2004 to the respondeht N6.1 herein. I . I have heard leamed coui|isel for The petitioneron qdmission. Leamed counsel for th4psti'l'ioner argued that in his written statement the petitioner herejn raised an objection that he is not a tendntof respondent No.l/fi^itjff; He took the rented premtsesin questjonon rent from responde^f No.2, theFefore, the responclent No.l is not entitled for the rent anfc) based on that the trial Court framed issue Nos. 1, 5 and 6, Therefoife, IB vievu of these issues the trial Court ought not to havedirected f()r. payment of arrears of rent to the respondent No.l, rather the'frial Courtought to have clirected for depositing therent and after|deciding the issues, the Court ought to have passed the order for pay, whose favour- the Court decide rented premises. nent of rent.to the coricerned person in s that he is the landtord of the disputed Gf^RJ—FS/^fi--3/200C -50,000. XI-HC—78 ar^i w K'u* ^W 3TT^T sh+lict» ^:.-' '3^ -'II'MH'1), »ti1<-i<is, R<ni'y^< tffiHCfT ^HTctl "^200 3n^?i Tra?T (ij°it-i»<<^) ^iiwoft'a.'ai^i -1- plai^t Sttte I have perused the impu No.l, as averred in the purchdsed the rented premise; herein under the registered mentioned that defendant No. the defendant No.l/petitioner renttothe respohdent No.l hei for that purpose respondent N' the petitioner herein through then the petitioner herein had the petitioner in his uuritt'en respondent No.l herein had pyr' No.2 on 3-1-2002 ond responde^ him on 11-1-02. Respondent Np. 1-iowever, respondent No.2 h^ (Annexure-P/3) in which he herein that he hadsold the written statement of the petit| the original landlord responde admits his landlord and has stj from respondent No.2 and res! transferred his shop to the impu^ned tti|<<[<'(<fhT TTPR^f ^f 'fe1^ ^fa1(^t< ^aifin aii^i order. The case of the respondent 1-, vuas that on 3rd January 2002 he If from defendant No.Z/respondent No.2 deed. In para-6 ofthe plaint it was ,|2 vide notice dated 11-1-2002 informed herein that hereinafter he should pay ^ein frpm the mpnth of January 2002 and j),l also gave registered written notice to Iregistered post on 15-3-2002, but even not paid the rent, whereas, the case of statement was that it is denied that the ^hdsed rented premises from resppndent ^t No.2 herein had not given cny notice to K had also not sent notice on 15-3-2002. trein had filed his written statement the plaintof the respondent No.l to him. Looking to the above plaint, [oner herein ond respondent No.2 herein, (it No.2 herein to whom the petitioner tEted that he took the premises on rent !p^>itdent No.2 is not disputin9 that he has respondent No.l herein, rather in his adihitted 4i°p ail^Twft-ito wnsn^twnw 'S^ "^IPTRPI, 69X11•M'16, fawiyy. 200 SlI^r'q^T (1?(g«IS?^ 1?% ST <S%<t 'aii^ __ <a reht enyisafies ptt^able written statement he has admt premises to the resppndent question of receiving of the the entitlement of responden^ above facts, I do not find ant counsel for the petjtioner. provisionsof sub-sections (3) Control Act, 1961 which in sub-section (1), there is an^ whom the rent is payable, th^ with the Court tfie amount section (2), 'ancf in such a case|, the amount ih deposit until tl|4 'tl order for payment of the sam| Court is satisfied that any di been r-aised by a tenant for 4 Court may order the defenc^ proceed wiith the hearing of As has beeh mentionedl that he purchased the rentejd registered sale deed dated 3-1| petitioner herein by resppnd^ Mo,2 also eent a riotice to the t* Giy>RJ—PS;'>-S— 5/200( —50,000. tbl1lti^t<il'K tffR?iIf ^ fa%t <^l^$ll ^"affipT^fen ^ * itted fhat he has transferreci the rented No.l, therefore, in fact, as^far as the is concerned, there is no dispute abput No.l to receive the rent. In view of the / substance in the argumentsof learned En thls connection, if we look into the (4) of S6ction 13 of the Accommodatipn that 'if, in anypt'oceeding referred to /dispute as to the person OP persons to Courf may direct the tenant todeposit by him under sub-section (1) or sub- , no person shall be entitled to vifithdraw Court' decides the dispute and makes an a;t Syb-dection (4)envi^iges that 'ifthe ipute referred to in sub-section (3) has easons which are false or frivolous, the against eviction to be struck out anc^ suit.' , . ; above, the case of resppndent No.l was premises from respondent No.2 vide 2002, notice of the same was sent to the nt No.l on 15-3-2002, evenrespohdent aetitionSr •f- XI-HC—78 sn^i w ft'li* ^WT 'STI^T !h*iich Barve ^ 'TSI'^W^, •a-^wis, pstvswy. *nw?w iB»t(ra» "Wl 200 sn^f 'cra?7 (lyfj«i<iq) TCnwaftwsn^i zf ^ritten staterrient also resp< respondent No.l that he has petitioner, but even then the No.2 as h'is landlopd, therefor^ that bonafide dispute remains | the person entitted to receive As far ds the case petitioner viz. Manaram V. JLJ 197 and Nothulal 6upt<< 1974 JLJ 434 are concernt applicable to the preseht case^ In the result, I do not| same is liable to be dismissed it is made clear that the trial ( while passing the final judgmer|t ^prf?fift'T HIH<y)i*^f tsrct' <F3f'^t< ^? 3ffip? ai^ff tndent No.2 has admitted the case of 1'ransferred the rented premises to the petitioner herein is claiming respondent ;, in the circumstances, it cannot be said ^after pleadings of the parl-ies thaf who is Ithe rent. 1p.ws cited by learned counsel for the C(mprakash and others reporl-ed in 1990 V. Phattandas & another reported in i^d, on the facts, these cases are not find any substance jn this writ petition, jmd it is accordjngly dismissed. Kowever, Fourt shall not be influenced by this order SdA L.C. Bhadoo Judge f^- V: ^3-^