(Sinole Bench" Hon'ble Mr- Justice Dhirendra rtishra^ W.P.I'C) No.5e73/2G09 (Petition U/A 226 of the Constitution of India) PETITIONERS Prachi Shikshan Samiti (Regd, No.2128) Ward No.12, Stadium Road, Kota, Raipur (C6) Through Joint Secretcry, Prachi Shikshan Samiti, Ward No.12, Kota Raipur (C6). Vs RESPONDENTS Applicant licant 1. The Rent Controlling Autiiority Raipur (C6) 2. Shri Ramesh Kumar Shrivostav, Aged about 64 years, S/o Shri D.P. Shrivastav, R/o Near SAI Darbdr Tuisipur, ftajncsndgaon (C6) 3. Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Aged about 43 years, R/o iVwnmohan SinghWard No.12, Stadium Road, Kota, Raipur (CS). Mr. V.©.Tamaskar, Advocate for the petitioner. (05.10.2009) 1. Heard on admission. of the No.l ^*.- 2. The petitioner by the instant petition has prayed for order dated 30.9.2008 (Annexure P-4) passed by the re; herein. r 3. Mr. Tamoskar, learned counsel for fhe petitioner submitt'ed that the petitioner is a registered society. The petitioner is running a schoo! nsmely 'New Morning ©iory Schooi' from the premi^s owned by respondent No.Z-loindlord. Respondent No.3 is the Director of the petitioner society. Respondent No.3 as Djrecto" of the petitioner' sodaty obtained the premlses on rent for running the school cmd sntered into an Oigreement of Annexure P-2. Respondent No.2 moyed an eviction cyplication ursder Sectlon 23A of the C.Q. Accommodation Control ^ct, 1961 (for short the Act') before the respondent No.l against respondent No.3 cnd the some was allowed vide order of Annexure P-4. Respondent No.3 filed.Ciyii RevisionNo.146/09 against 1+ie order of respondent No.l befprs the High Court and the samewas, °>^ also dismissed vide order dated 25.8.2009 (Annexure P-5). Ksspondent N6.2 in collusion with respondent No.3 has obtained a decree of eviction from the respondent No.l without impleading the petitioner as party in the proceedings. From psrusa! of the agreement it would be evident that the accommodation in question wos taken on rent for running the petitioner society's schoo! <ind as such the petitioner was necessary party and in absence of the petitioner, respondent No.l cou!d not have passed the impugned eviction order. In any case, the order of eviction couidnot be executed against the petitioner societ/, howeyer, "espondent No.2 has initiated proceedin9S for executlon of the impugned order through respondent No.l. 4. Fr'om't+ie pleadings in the writ petition it is eyident that respondent No.2 has obtained an order of eviction from the respondent No.l a9oinst respondent No.3 without impleading the petitioner herein. Jhe order of respondent No.l has been subsequentty confirmed in revision by the High Court. Therefore, I cm of tiie opinion 1+iat the instant petition at the instcnce of the petitioner for quashing the order of respondent No.l is not mamtairiable. 5. Accordingly, 1+is writ petition is dismissed as not maintait Consequently, I.A. No.l also stands dismissed. ,Vrfa ^•^ ^s-