IN THEJIIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (227) No. ^ 109 OF 2010. PETITIONER Defendant ^-?:aj<^^ T°'^^^e^tsi SINIiL£ BtWH Rakesh @ Rajesh Gupta, aged about 34 years, Resident of Gupta para Arang, Tahsil Arang, District Raipur (C. G.). RESPONDENT Plaintiff VERSUS ^' •^*^ ^^.^.•- ^^^-- -.^5^'"1 Bhushan Lal Joshi, aged about 44 years, S/o. late Shri Radhe Shyam Joshi, R/o. Main Road, Bus Stand, Arang, Tahsil Arang, Disfrict Raipur (C. G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA s;^^^r®u^^iB^S ^,^^§:^^3s%.'si:S^i;^'S^t^ailu!^ ••"I. h-.) mGH COURT OF GEfflATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227) No. 5109/2010 PETITIONER : Rakesh @ Rajesh Gupta Versus RESPONDENT : Bhushan Lal Joshi Apoearanee: Shri Anoop Kumar Shanna, counsel for the petitioner. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (07.09.2010) The trial court has disposed of the defendant's application under section 13 (2) ofthe Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 and has fixed the provisional rent at Rs.1500/- per month. (2) Counsel for the petitioner has argued that infact the plaintifi's brother is the land lord and he used to receive the rent at Rs.150/- per month and was always issuing receipts in proofofreceipt ofrent. He would submit that the trial court has not considered the rent receipts and the explanation put forth by the petitioner in his written statement explaming as to in what circumstances the rate ofrent was admitted to be Rs.1500/- in reply to the legal notice sent by the plaintiflfbefore filing ofthesuit. (3) The plaintiff has filed the suit for eviction and arrears of rent alleging that the plaintifif is in need of the premises and the K^ petitioner/defendant has failed to make payment of rent from April ^:iC'""alt» /"^c'€s I 2006 onwards. The defendant, after receiving the summons, moved the subject application inter-alia stating that tiie monthly reat of tiie accommodation is Rs.150/- and not Rs.1500/- as claimed by the plaintiff. (4) The trial court, after observing that in the reply to the legal notice, the defendant has admitted that the monthly rent of the accommodation is Rs.1500/-, therefore the provisional rent is fixed at Rs.1500/-. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the rent receipts have been issued by the plaintiff's brother, therefore the trial court is justified in not placing reliance on the rent receipts at this stage ofthe SUlt. (5) In view of the statemenl/admission made by the defendant in his reply to the legal notice admitting the monthly rent at Rs.1500/-, the trial court has not committed any en-or in fixing the provisional rent at Rs.1500/-. Even otherwise, the rent fixed is provisional in nature and shall be determined finally at the end ofthe suit and ifit is found that the rent was infact Rs.150/-, the trial court wquld necessarily pass appropriate order in this behalf while deciding the surt. (6) With this observation, the petition stands dismissed. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge