THE HIGH COURT OE 3UDICATURE AT BILASPUR .^°1S No!-1 ...i~ r'(%-^r ^.^y>- ^y ^' ^•":^'../' ,^~Q.<) ^ '^< RESPONDENTS PLAINTIFF M/s Vandana Stores through Rajendra Adwani, aged about 42 years, S/o Late Shri Girdhari Lal, R/o Main Road, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar [Chhattisgarh] VE RS U S Udharam Moolchandaai aged about 43 years S/o Dhanraj Moolchan- dani, R/o Motilal Nehru Ward, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar [Chhattisgarh] RESPONDENT Jamil-ur-rahman Khan S/o Hazi Sardar Khan R/o Sardar Ward,Takur Road, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar [Chhattisgarh] KlSllfe 3. First Civil Judge Class-I District Court, Jagdalpur (Bastar) CG. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDXA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OFCERTIORARL PROHIBITION AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS. ORDER QR The petitioner, named above, most respectfully begs to submit as under: PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: As mentioned in the Cause title above. ^;51^•t'-^|tiii^^^®; . -^ 3n^r^(l<-f w aii^r snfl<» *i!«<CTigpwah "3'^ •*{nM^, w^wis^wi-wj'K w f ^^f!^"^200 an^?r'^sp (iciIy«tI!Q ?WKtR ^tf^d •Off^fl w-rd-iiuw Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal,c4'nsel for the petitioner. The petitioner who is a t petition being aggrieved by the passed by the First Civil Jud^e Class-I jn civil suit No.8-A/2003i whereby the learned Civil Judgi petitioner herein, directed th Rs.15,000/- from Januar^, 2002 ^ after allowing the applreal'ion of tt-nfc ^ petiTioner to pay amount of renl}, to June,2004 to the respohderr^No.ti herein. I have heard le;arned court Learned counsel for theI statement the petitioner herei tenant of respondent No.l/p^ question on rent from responde^ is not entitled for the rent ancji issue Nos, 1, 5 and 6. Thereforj ought nat to have directed f<^i respondent No.l, r'ather the t^ depositing the rent and after have passed the order for paynf' whose favour the Gourt decidesl rented premises. q|t|<t[CT<flt ^]ltcff^ TSldl;<^II'!^<. ^" afff^tT SH^T ; r^ nant in a shophos {ireferred^hiswrrts irder dated 3-7-2004 (Annenxure-P/fi^ tel f6r the petitioner onTadmission. petitioner argued that in +iis wntten raised an objection that he is not a tjff. He took the rented premises. in !'t.No.2, there-fore, tKe respondent No.l based on that the trial Court frgmed !, in view of these issues the trial Court payment of arrears of rent to the •jal Court ought to haye direeted for leciding the issues, the Courf ought tb ent of rent to the concerned person in that he is the landlord 6f the disputed GKPRJ—FSu-TB—.??200(-50,000. + XI-HG—78 sn^t^i R;-il+ ^H^rTT^T^qf^ '3^ 'SIFH^PT, tS>fll«<|(o;fsKnl-H^ HtM<ir a>*iicii TF^ZOO a'lI^fT'q^T (iyf^«i<tT) pugi|ied I have perused the impugi No.l, as averrect in the plainl purchased the rented premises herein under the registered sat mentteined that defendant No.2 the defendant No.l/oetitioner rent to the respondent No.l her^ for that purpose respondent No^ the petjtioner herein thpough r then thepetitioner herein hdd the petitioner in his wr'itten st< respondent'No.1 herein had No.2on 3-1-2002 and responden-| him on 11-1-02. Respondent No.l| l-lowever', respondent No.2 ,he> (Annexure-P/3) in which he admj herein that he had sold the sh:| written statement of the petiti^ the original landlerd responden| admits his landlord and has from respondent No.Zand resf tranaferred his shop to the ct)|tlfo<<ll *1HC1? "4 f^%t 'lf^f^li ^aiRm 3n^i cirder. TKe caseofthe respohdent l|, was that on 3rd January 2002 he [from defendant No.S/respondent No.2 t^ deed. In para-6 of the plaintit was vide notice dated 11-1-2002 informed [lerein that hereinafter he should pay jin from- the month of January 2002 and |1 also gave registered written notice to r^gistered post on 15-3-2002, but even |ot paid the rent, whereas, the case of ktement was thcrf it is denied that the purc|iased rented premises from respondent No.2 herein had not given any notice to ;'had also not sent notice on 15-3-2002. I'ein had filed his written statement 1-tted the plaint of the respondent No.l >p tq him. Looking to the above plaint, |ner herein and respondent No,2 herein, No.2 herein to whorn the petitioner stalyd that he took the premises on rent iptjndent No.2 is not disputing that he has ^espondent No.l herein, rather in his L-.. -I- an^a q>t ft-iiie cW ^D^r si»*i(<i* ^- wiww»»n^ 3^ •<<i<<i<n<i, »fl]'H<is, fadl'y^ .i^..f...^..eZ£t.S'^,...... sil^t"TW ('iplgi'i'ti) 8«H<8<ttl^tt ^H^ff 3 pqy4>l vuritten statement he has admij premises to the pespondent N question of receiving of the rert the entitlement of respondent above facts, I do not find any counsel for the petitioner. Ii prov'isions of sub-sections (3) <Ss Control Act, 1961which envisage in sub-section (1), there is any whom the rent is pdyable, the with the Court the amount section (2), and in such a case, the amount ih deposit until tK&j order for payment of the same| Court- is satisfied that any disj been raised by a tenant for Court may order the defence proceed uuith the hearing ofth^ As has been mentioned that he purchased the rente4 registered sale deed dated 3-1- petitioner herein by respondef| No.2 also sent a notice to the di l?PiRi^3^*1 lti*t^f ^f Ife^ t ^ ^ ^ ^ 'oficffl <Hlt<^( 1'ed that he has transferred the rented l|).l, therefore, in fact, as far as the is concemed, there is no dispute abpuft Slo.l to receive the rent. In viewofthiEs ^ubstance ih the ar'guments of leamed this connection, if we look intd thf^ (4) of -Sectiori 13 of the Accornmodatiorf" js that 'ff, in any pro&eding referr'ed to ^lisputeasto the person or* persons to tourt' may direct the tenant to deposit' le by him under sub-sectioh (1) or sub- ^io person shall be entitled to withdraw pourt- dec ides the dispute and makes & .'Sub-section (4) envisages thcrt- 'jf the (ute referred to in sub-section (3) hos which are false or frivolous, the against eviction to be struck out ond [suit.' . . ' 4bove, the case of respondent No.l was premises from respondent No.2 vide '002, notice ofthe samewas sent to the No.l on 15-3-2002, even respondent ititioner hereiri on 11-1-2002 and in the reiasQBs GiyRJ-^&TB -X200f -50,000. ~T~ XI-HC—78 an^I 'TI K-ti* TOI an^T SCTW 'f^-t Barve -ysf 'sj|^M4, ^ti1<-l»l<«,fadiuy WN<rtl (h*ll<ft •^FI.200 3n^[Ti;W('^f3^r) TCIIW ^iOTfli^f -<\+- receivelthe written statement also respj resppndent No.l that he has petitioner, byt even then the| No.2 as his landlord, therefort that bonafide dispute remains the person entitled to As far 'as the case petitioner viz, Manaram V. JLJ 197 and Nathulal 6upto| 1974 JLJ 434 are concernl applicable to the present case.] In the result, I do ndt same is liable to be dismissed i it is made clear that the trial while passing the final judgmen 'tWit'lll'l NIWll' 41S%t <Rnt<i< ^? affipT anS'ff mdent No.2 has admitt-ed the case of I'ransferred the rentedpremises to the petitioner herein is claiming respondent :, in the circumstances, it cannot be said |aftep pleadings of the parties that who is rent, iws cited by learned counsel for the C]wprakash and others reported in 1990 V. Phattandas & another report'ed in id, on the facts, these cases are not find any substance in this writ petitjon, ^id it is accordingly dismissed. 1-lowever, ^ourt- shall not be influenced by this order Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ^ ^y