BEFORETHEHON'BLEHIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (227)No. ^09, /2010 PETITIONER DEFENDANT Pappu @ A. Farishta s/o. late Gulam Ali Farishta, aged about 45 years, R/o. Qua. N6. Ground Floor- 4, C-1, Ravinagar, Housing Colony, Behind yo.--.^^?n\^Vb...•-•"" E.A.C. Colony, Raipur, Tahsil & Distict- ^•'^*^v^.^--"" „, ,„„," 1^° ^& y<&"= "^^- .»&«•••" RESPONDENT/ PLAINTIFF Raipur(C.G.) VERSUS T.S. Dewangan s/o. late Sakharam Dewangan, aged about 70 years, Architect, present R/o. Near !• • Chhattisgarh CQllege, Bairan Bazar, Raipur, Tahsil & Districf- Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE227 OF THE CONSTITUTIONOFINDIA. J-- c^) HIGHGOURTOFGHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR SinaleBench: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kiimar Mishra, J. Petitioner Defendant Respondent Plaintiff Writ Petition (227) No. 608 of 2010. Pappu @ A. Farishta Versus T.S. Dewangan Writ petition under Articte 227 of the Consytution of India Present: Shri A.K. Prasad, counsel for the petitioner. O RDE R (10tn f:ebruary,2010) Ina suit for evictionpreferred by the respondent/ plaintiff, fhe present petitioner has eome up with a plea in his wntten statement that he is in possession of the suit premises as prospective purchaser by virtue of an agreement dated 06.04.2007 (Annexure-P/7), therefore, he is entitled to protect his possession under Section 53 (A) of the Transfer of Property Act. The petitioner, after service of the summons inthe suit, has not raised any dispute about the period of arrears of rent or rate of jent, as observed by the trial Court. Since the petitioner failed to deposit the monthly rent during the pendency of the suit, an ^application under Section 13(6) of the G.G. Accommodation subbu Control Act.was moved by the plaintiff, which has been allowed by the impugned order, passed by the trial Court. 2) In the opinion of this Gourt, since the petitioner claims that his possession after executionofthe agreement to sale isnot that ofa tenant, therefore, he is not liable to deposit the monthly rent, the order passed by the trial Gourtstnkingout his defence will not prejudice him, inasmuch as, on his own showing the defendant claims that he is not tenant inthe suit premises. 3) There being no illegality in the order passed by the learned trial Court warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitytion of India, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd//- PrashantKumar Mishra Judge