CD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILA$PUR CHHATTISGARH S74‘8 Writ Petition No. of 2Qo§ Tahsi! & Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ‘:V§f§uii‘ R§EE9IW§III Hirahi Yadav, (Plaintiff) S/o Bano Yadav, aged above 63 years, Rio Sirgitti, Tarbahar, Tahsil 8: Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ‘ That, the petitioner/defendant named above, begs to submit as under i- 1.. Particulars qt the mtitiqmr :- As mentioned in the cause titte. ‘jnev DIRECTIONORDIRECIIOM/ ORDER OR ORDES : Petitioner : $ 7‘ Samaylal Yadav, (Defendant) / 1* é} \,§wu:& S/o Kanhaiya Yadav t \p Na r ,N aged above S7 years, 5y a R/o Sirgitti Tarbé.har,' at; HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition 1T0. 3748/2005 / V WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (09.02201 1) Though the concerned D.A. has not submitted a repmt regarding service, yet on perusal of the summons it appears that the proposed legal heirs of the deceased respondent Hiralal Yadav have been served. No one appears on their behalf. (2) Heard on LA. No.7777/2005. (3) On due consideration, application is allowed. (4) Petitioner is permitted to amend the cause title to substitute the legal heirs of deceased respondent. (5) Trial Court has allowed plaintimlandlord’s application under Section 13 (6) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (henceforth ‘the Aet’). (6) Plaintiff has filed the suit for petitioner/defendant’s eviction from the suit premises situated at Mohalla Sirgitti (Tarbahar) Bilaspur. According to the plaintiff, the defendant is his tenant on monthly rent of Rs.30/—.’ Atter service of summon the defendant submitted his written ’ statement, however he did not deposit arrears of rent or monthly rent as PETITIONER Samaylal Yadav Versus RESPONDENT Hiralal Yadav Appearance: Shri Sourabh Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. according to him he is the owner of the property and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant. (7) The plaintiff pteferred an application under Section 13 (6) of the Act for striking out the defence of the petitioner. In his reply to this application the petitioner again reiterated his stand that he is the owner of the property and the suit is frivolous. (8) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order deserves to be set aside in as much as when the relationship of landlord and tenant has not been established, there is no question of invoking the provision contained in Section 13 (6) ofthe Act. (9) . In the opinion of this Court, the provision contained in Section 13 (1) of the Act obligates the tenant to deposit the rent within one month from the date of service and consequences of non-compliance is provided under Section 13 (6) of the Act for striking out the defence. Admittedly, the petitioner has not tendered arrears of rent or monthly rent to the plaintiff. Thus, the impugned order does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for some time to deposit the arrears of rent and the monthly rent during pendency of the suit. Petitioner, if he so desires, may tender arrears of rent and monthly rent along with an application for condoning the delay. If such an application is moved the Trial Court shall decide the same in accordance with law. (10) With the above observation, the instant petition is disposed of. Sdl- Prashant Kumar Mishia 1‘ Judge .