'•'"'^iWSfilWS-S!"', <z> HIGH COUHT OF CHHAmSGARH. BILASPUR Writ Petitioa (3271 No. 1991/2009 Munnalal alias Rajlnimar Gupta Ajay Dubey and others ORD -^: Postfor^-^-4-2009 a'i a ^ "9S. SS: • Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge •ye ^:l^^ l;s§^ • n w 11U. Munnalal alias Rajkujnar Gupta, son of Shri Balm.uki.md Gupta, aged 44 years, resident of Gondpara, Tehsil and District Bilaspi-ir (CG), Proprietor Swati Sweets, Mahamaya Chowk, Sai'kanda, TahsQ and Distt. BilaspUT (CG) 2, Ajay Dubey, son of late Gourishankar Dubey, aged 36 years, resident of Mahamaya Chowk, Sarkanda, Tehsil and Distt. BUaspur (CG) Siiit. Tai'a Dzibey, widow of late Oauri Shankar Dubey, aged 60 years, resident of Mahamaya Chowk, Sarkanda, Tehsil and Distt. (CG) . Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate for fhe petitioner. SB; HON'BLB SHRJ JUSTICB .N.K. AGARWAL ^'2^-4- Heard on adinission. 2. This petition is directed against the arders dated 27-9- 2008 aiid 5-3-2009 passed by tl-ie 3rd CivU Judge Class II, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 8A/2008. Vide order dated 27-9-2008, leaj-ned trial Court directed the petitioner to deposit fhe am.ouiit of arrears of rent and by the same order, an application under Section 13(6] of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short, hereinafter refen'ed to as the Act) filed 1oy tfae respondent No. 1 /plaintiffhas been dismissed. Vide order dafed iga 5-3-2009,. again time has been granted to the petitioner for deposit of arrears of rent. 3. Brief facts of this case are fhat fhe respondent No. 1 /plaintiff instituted a suit for eviction and arrears of rent agatast the petitioner/detendant No. 1 on (he averment that tfae petitioner/ defendant No. 1 is his tenant since 1997. The petitioner/ defendant No. 1 stopped payment of rent since December, 2007 and denied the plainttfTs cmrnership on fhe siiit premlses. 4. The defendant ffled reply and pleaded fhat he has not denied the fact fhat tiie respondent No. 1/plaintlff is landlord. He further pleaded that since the suit propert^' is said to be joint famil;7 property of fhe plalntiff along wifh her mdther Smt. Tara Dubey/respondent No. 2 and, therefore, the plainttff was recovering rent fi-om the defendaat on behalf of Smt. Tara Dubey. The petltioner started payment of rent since Decem.ber, 2007 to Smt Tara Dubey on-her deruand. The petitioner further e pleaded fhat by paying tlie rent to Smt. Tara Dubey, in fact, fhe petitioner is paying fhe rent to the owner of tfae house and, .^^. Wi therefore, he is not in arrears of rent. 5. After hearing leamed counsel for the parties and after a close scrutiny of fhe m.aterial on record, leamed trial Court felt that fhere is no dispute with regafd to rate of rent or arrears of rgnt and only dispute raised by fhe petitioner / defendant No. 1 is as to'who is fhe person to whoin the rent is payable, either I.H :i ;Cr ^ plaiatiff/respondent No. 1 or Smt. Tara Dubey/ respondent No. 2 and for fhis, the trial Court held that fhe questioned dispute coines under the ambit of sub-section 3 of Section 13 of fhe Act and; therefore, to get protection under Section 13 of tfae Act, coapliance of Section 13(1) of fhe Act is necessary and dtrected the petitioner/defendant No. 1 to deposit the same within a monfti. It was furthcr directed by fhe leamed trial Court that flie saine wiU not be disbursed to the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 tfll final decision of the suit. The same direction has been passed by leamed trial Court vide order dated 5-3-2009 granting more time to the petitioner / defendant No. 1. 6. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, leamed counsel for fhe petltioner, referred to Annexure P-2 i.e; tlie tenancy agreement dated 7-5- 1997 between Smt. Tara Dubey and Shri Rajkumar Gupta, Annexiire P-7, application under Order 1 Rule 10 read wifh Section 151 ofCPC filed by Ajay Dubey/plaintilf, fhe appUcation under Section 13(61 filed by the plaintifi'and its reply filed by the defendant and contended that on demand of Smt. Tara Dubey, ffae petitioner is paying rent regularly to Smt Tara Dubey and if y^f). an eviction siut filed by fhe respondent No. 1/plajntiff, the defendant is required to pay the_-arrears of rent, then it would amount to double jeopardy as on J:he basis of the agreement between Smt. Tara Dubey and him entered on 7-5-1997, the pefitioner is paying reiit now to Smt. Tara Dubey/respondent N0., 2 as she is owner of the suit property. After hearing Shri Rajeev Sfinvastava, learaied counsel for tfae petitipner, after ^ • ^A^ ~iK»wa!0":e' <t>< i >C(' peinsing fhe record as also the order impugned, I do not find any substance in the instant petition warrantuig interi'erence in exercise of JL-irisdiction under Article 227 of fhe Constttutlon of India on two grormds; first the petitioner / defendant No. 1 specifically admits fhe respondent No. 1/plaintiffas his landlord and payment of rent to liim; and secondly, leamed trial Court only ordered the petitioner / defendant No. 1 to deposit the arrears ofrent aad monthly reiit in terms of Section 13(1) ofthe Act pending enquiry under Section 13(3} offhe Act. 41'though no specific word has been used by leamed trial Court to resolve fhis dispute envisages i-mder Section 13(3} after framing a prelmiinary issue tn this regard expeditiously, but the leamed trial Court certainly decided the dispute in terms of Section 13(3) offhe Act expeditiously by framing issue in fhis regard. 7. In view of the above discussion, this petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge N El 1.1 ^« .^^2