'% '^ ff &A—..,. 1 '^ "•^"^'•~'^>^'':^t> ;;;' |iNaniiiiiiii» U-& HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227t N0. 2871/^511 PBTITIONER (Defendant) VBRSUS RBSPONDBNT (Plaintifi) Radhacharan S/o Jaaakraia Aged about 72 years, Occupation Business, R/o Kirodioial Colony, Raigarh, Distdct Raigarh (C.G.). Bhagirathi Sharma S/o Rameshwar Prasad Sharma (Dadhichi), Aged about 72 years, occupation Business, R/o Thefhwar Para, Raigarh, Disfcdct Raigarh (C.G.). WRIT PBTITION UNDBR ARTICLE 227 OF THB CON8TITUTION OF INDIA. (SB :Hoa>ble Mr. T^P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Abhishek Saraf, Advocate for the petitioner. Respondent not noticed. PRAL-ORDBR (Passedon 23/08/2011) 1, By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitation of India petitioner has chaUenged the legatity and propriely of the order dated 18/2/2011 passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Raigarh C.G. ia Civil Suit No. 27-A/09 whereby Court below has passed fhe order strikiag oflT fhe defense of present petitioiier/tenaat ia suit filed for eviction under C,G. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. 2. Shri Abhishek Saraf, Advocate for the petitioner is heard, 3. Learaed counsel for tfae petitioner submits fhat he has paid arrears of rent dues agaiast him therefore by strikmg off defense Court below has committed aa iUegality. 4. Learaed counsel for the petitioner further submits fhat suit is stiU pending before fhe Court below aad Court has not fiiially disposed of fhe suit. 5. Order impugned penised. ^7 7. 8. In all cases of default ia payinent of rent, Coiirt is not required to strikuig ofi' fhe defense unless defaiilt inade in Hialafidy aiid contamacy. In fhese circumstances by stdkiag off tfae defease Court below has comxaitted an iUegality. Observaace of proceduial law ia the present case would only be futUe exercise aad it will cause delay in decision of fhe pending suit fliereforc no noUce has issued to respondent. Petitioner is defendaat ia eviction suit after passiag of order dated 18/2/2011 he has irot takeu imiaediate steps for chaUeugiag such order and has fUed applicatlon for copy of tlie order on 1/4/2011 after more tliaa 1 monfh of the order impugned thereafter after obtamiag fhe copy on 20/4/2011 he has filed fhis petition on 10/5/2011. Considermg fhe wiUftil act offhe petitioner soine cost inust be required to be imposed upoa fhe petitioner. Consequently, petition is allowed aad oider impugned is set-aside subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,0(X)/- to respondent withia 10 days froin today. Interiin appUcations are staads disposed of, No order as to costs, 9. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^