@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (2g?! NQ 984 OF 2QQ9 Versus Dr. Vinay Pathankar. Slo Late Dr. Vaman Patankar, aged about 56 years Rio Pachripara, Stétion Road, Durg, :I'ahsil and District Durg (CG). (Writ petition under Anicle 227 of the Constitution of indie) Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: - Shri P.P. Sahu. counsel for the petitioner. O ORDER (Passed on this 16 day of February, 2009) By this petition. the petitioner/defendant chailenges the legality and validity of the order dated 7-1-2009 (Annexure-P/t) passed by the 12‘“ Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Burg. in civil suit No.80-Af2007 (Dr. Vinay Pathenkar vs. Kaushalya Bat Mott/van!) whereby the application tiled by the petitioner under Section 12 (4) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act. 1961 (for short “the Act, 1961’) has been rejected. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner has taken the suit house on rent situated at nazul land bearing No.44. sheet No.45-D, Pachripara. Durg. Smt. Kamla Devi, who was issueless/‘owned. the said suit premises and she died on 13-7-2005. The respondent herein tited a civil suit on the ground that he is the owner of the suit premises by virtue of will executed by Smt. Kamla Devi in his favour. Learned counsel further submits that in the said civil suit, the petitioner tiled an application under Section 12 (4) of the Act, 1961 stating that the notice has been issued before the period of one year from the date of acquisition of right and title over the suit premises and prayed that the civil suit may be dismissed on the ground of being premature. The respondent tiled his reply to the said application and submitted that the proceedings have been initiated only after the period of requisite limitation as prescribed under the provisions of law. Learned counsel next submits that the Court below rejected the application of the petitioner, which is not PETITIONERI Kaushalya Bai Motwani, S/o Late Shri Defendant Sajan Das, aged about 50 years, R/o Pachli Para, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (CG). sustainable in the eye of iaw. The Court beiow has not at a“ appreciated the previsions of Sectien 12 (4) of the Act. 1961 in its letter and spirit. The respondent ought to have initiated the proceedings only after compietion of one year from the date of order passed by the Nazui Officer entering his name in the revenue records i.e. on 24-5-2006 whereas the notice has been issued prior to completion of one year i.e. on 24-4-2007. 3) l have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. While rejecting the application med by the petitioner/defendant under Section‘12 (4) of the Aot, 1961 the Court below observed that though the name of the piaintifflrespondent has entered into the revenue records on 24-5-2006. he has acquired the right over the suit premises after the death of Kamla Devi i.e. on 13-7-2005 and it cannot be said that the plaintiff has acquired the right over the suit premises with effect from 24-5-2006. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Court below is unexceptionable, just & proper warranting no interference. The petitionerldefendant is at liberty to raise all the points at the time of tinal hearing. 4) It is well-nigh established that this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227‘of the Constitution of lndia, should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Courts below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present case. ' 5) ln View of the foregoing, the petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. C) Consequently, l.A.No..‘l stands disposed of. \ Agave”; ii r Sws‘,‘ . K. wig? \‘\ ’