XI-HG—78 .'yer'^pn^R, siflly'is, fqciiyy ^WW 9>HI<sh WI, 200 SD^T'T^T (Tpi35i^i) an^iwf^iw ^V 3PfT^?T ShHlch WITW ^tef sit^r S.B. HON'BLESnR! DHIRElSDRA IvilSHRA. J. W.P.fC) N0 WR1T PETITION UNDER ARTICtB 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ?ffi5^?A f<ishore Ch Bhoi, S/o S.S. Bhoi, Aged ^tbout 66 years, R/o House No.52/1, ^ls.th.para., Rsipur, District Raipur FCG) piat. Leela Sahu, W/o D. Sahu, Aged j ^.bout. 44 years, R/o IIouse No.52/1, | [Mafhpara, Raipur, District Raipur | f^rs f? '^t^^i • Shri VR Tiwari, couiisel for Shri Raja Shanna, counsel By this petition iinder Ai-tic]|c petitioner has impugned the ord|i whereby the leanied VI Civil Jui| appUcatiou of ttie petitioner/ defenjl. dismissiue the suit of fhe resooDldf has ah-eady ffled proceedings uiic|f Coutrol Act before the Rent Coditro instant suit at her uistaiice for eviif; CM<<ECT<llTt ^l^'T'^f Is^ <^1^R ^TsifiFTOT^T •ft-l5GF2SQ7 /^r^\ V^-^.lf lie Detitiouer. ^)i~ the respondent. 227 of fhe Constitution of India, the sr dated 16.11.2006 (Annexure P/l) Elge, Class-I, Raipur has rejected fhe [laat under Section 151 ofthe CPC for ait/plamtiff on the groynd that she •r Section 23A of the Accpinm.odation ita.-oUiag Authoiift' and ttierefore, the 'fion, is not inaiiitaiuable. :f XI-HG—78 "3^1 -41<<HA|, ®tllwi<B,(«<^)l'yti< *imcn ai<n^ •^200 311^1 Vf R;-li+ WTSn^Tspqr^ ^L •W^I 'T5RT (ipfg^q) 'FRIIWHfel 311^1 Froni perusal of fh.e ia^ question has been. filed by eauiaerated uader Section Conti-ol Act. The uial Court with an observation that fhei for eviction 011 anv otlier grol the Acconunodation Contrdl proceedings for eviction und^ Authority. Iii fhe considered opii} Court fhat fhe suit prefen-e4 dismissed ou tlie groiind o| iastauce before fhe Rent Coil wifh lazv. There is uo iileg; iinpugned order, which may to tlie petitioner/defeD.dant, \^ tlie Coustitation of India. Resultaatlv, flie instaiii t5"be dismissed aad is herebvl <?il^f<ft'1 *fftf^ff ^f 1^-iTf <^t^T< '^aifmaitRSi [pugned order it is evident fhat the suit in fb.e respondent/plamtiff on the grounds l2(l)(c),(h) aiid (a) of ttie Accoinmodation lhas rejected the objection of the petitioiier \e is TIO bar against the landloid filing suit b.nds available to him under Section 12 of Act. wbere he has alreadv initiated fer Section 23A before tlie Rent Controllins lion of tliis Court, fhe findhig of flie trial by the respondeiit/plauitiff could not be pendeucy of eviction proceedings at her (ta'oUing Authority, is stncUy in accordance aBitv, infirmitv or jurisdictional en-or in ttie |)ccasion failure ofjustice or gi"oss tnjustice l7aiTantiag intei-ference under Article 227 of t petition being wifliout substance is Uable disniissed at fhe admission staee itself. Sd/- Dhirednra Mishra Judge