IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION No. ( ^O /2007 APPLICANTS 1) Yasin Teli S/o. Mamda Teli aged about - 50 years 2) AsrafTeli S/o. Gani Teli, aged about - 48 years, Both R/o. - Hamalpara, Rajnandgaon, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS NON APPLICANTS .1) Ismile Hussain Fatami S/o. Late Shri Inait Hussain, aged about 59 years, Present R/o. Sector-1, Power House, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.). i^A^ ^ <3 ^^ ••%^" f 2) Nazruddin S/o. Sulemanji, aged about- 48 years, R/o. Gudakhu Line, Rajnandgaon , Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) CML REVISION UNDER SECTION 23(E) ofCHHATTISGARH ACCOMMODATION CONTROLACT. 1961 R^V. SECTION 150 OF Code of Civil Procedure, .^A .^"^ \1-1' • 3-^ ^3^6 "X..-HC—'8<, -w^ ^. W7r^ j 'W ;3:n^T ^^Jch ! HW^i ^W^ T^f ^j^s^4, ^Tll^4!^ Mc-li^y, —..c;..P..:..H.O..'..t5ft/.D2 ^200 3TI^iTT^:B (^f^^) '^TOT 'ef^ -^T^T t 1-7- Snri Anoop Majiundaij Shii P.K. Vemia, Sr.j Verma^ Advocate, fbr tfae re^ None appears for resp| Heard. This revision is directl 2007 passed by Rent Conti Case No. 2A/90/1993-94 objection prefeiTed by tlie ^ eviction order has been Sliri Anoop Majimi applicant submits tiiat in contents was mider Order under Section 47 read witli ^F?NT7fl^ ^R^ff -^ t^zt Tf^3TT ^ 3tf?R 3H^T , Advocate, for tlie applicaiit. Advocate witli Shri Reghvendra spondent No. l.~~ Dndent No. 2 though served. pd agamst tlie order 14-9- lolling Autliori.ly, Rajnaiidgaon in whereby and whereunder, the ^pplicant durmg execution of the as not maintaiiiable. disifaissed lai-, leai'ned counsel for tlie fo.ct,. the application llled before the Rent Controlling Autlioitity by the applicant loofcmg to its 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C. and not Order 21 Rule 58 of.C.P.C. and, tlierefore, tlie said applica1|ion ought to have been decided by flie Rent Conti-olling Ai4thority aft.er conducting enquiiy ^;-4"^. €.., °:; v ^^^^y^. 1^%& i: "t -"' ~3^f '^l^ld-l, %?'^'^li<o, f®l^l'M*j,< ^nin^i w*ii^ •-^200 gn^n?!^ C^lt^?) ^ferahTnq^iflt^t-rf^R ^3tiw3?n^r in accordaiice witli tlie relevaiit provlsions contaiiied in Order 21 Ri-Ue 97 to Ordeit 21 Rule 101 of C.P.C. Per contra, Shi'i Ver^aa, leamed Sr. CcFunsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 ^upported the order passed by the Rent Conti'olling Autlioril I have heai'd lem'n^d counsel for the parties aiid perused the record. From a bare perusap of the apptication filed by the applicaiit, it seems that fh^ said application in fact was ffled under Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C. azid, therefore, the same requires adjudication in t^rms of Order 21 Rule 97(2), of c.P.C. in view of judgmenj another —v-Rajesh ^ 1827. : iii tl-ie case of Sfareeaath aad reported m AIR 1998 SC Having heai'd leaiTie|i comisel for the parties and having perused the mipugnjed order, I aiii of the considered opmion that tlie matter des^rves to be remitted back before the Rent Controlling Authoi|ity for its decision afresh on the application flled by the ap^licant treatiiig it as application ^f^^^^^nw<rif-riw^—FS/95—i i /2G08—i ,00,000. 3ff^r ^T f^lFF 'TOT 371^1 sCTW ^sr ^l^ld11!, ^Tl1^4l<o, [®l<rtl^< ^^.^.c?......^.../^ Nl*l<ftl tn*ii<»» ^TI^T 1(T^^ (<i?^<i4) ^TOT^lfeT'3^ imder Order 21 Rule 97 accordance with law in Shreeaath aad aaother's Ordered accordingly. The rcvision is allowe' obl^id^il'1 'HTH^f ^^^ <i^t$i< ^3fRm3TT^T of C.P.C. on its own merit in fhe light of the decision in •ase (supra). Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge