IN THE HIGH COURT OP CXHATIS&&RH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) Writ Petition {C} No. ^^Z/ /2006 PETITIONERS "EFENDANTS •/\7 vy,c^\ 1-) ^/ ^y .••• .9 .•o' ^- ^<^-" ^" RESPQNDENT PLAINTIFF ^^y \.. VERSUS M/s Bagai Golden Transport Company, Head Of5ce at E-4 (6), Sitaram Buildin^ Crawford Market, Mumbai (M.S.) M/s Bagai Golden Transport Company, Branch Office: Opposite Hira Soaps, Khamtarai, Raipur (C.G.) -M/s Raipur Metal Products Fttvate Limited, A Registered Company Incorporated under the Companies Act with Registered Offlce at Raipur- Bilapsur Road, Khamtarai, Raipur (C.G) ^-' ^ ^ •s> ^-AA ^ ^ <^ HIGH CQURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETmONERS Defendants Wrtt Petition (CV No. 7372 of 2QOG : M/s Bagai Gotden Transport Company & another VERSUS RESPONDENT : M/s Raipur Metal Produets Prtvate Limited PlainW (WRIT PETITtON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTON OF INDIAV (SB: Hon'bte Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present : Shri SS Rajput, Advocate for the petitionere, Shri Gautam Bhaduri, Advocatefor respondenfc *- ORAL ORDER (Passed on 06.07.2011) The iretant petition fited under Arttele 227 of the Constitution of India calls in question the legality and proprlety of order dated 17.02.2006, passed by Xlth Addl. Distriet Jirige (FTC), Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 81-A/2004, whereby and whereunder the petttioner's defence was struck of by the trial court in exercise of tts power under Section 13 (6) ofthe Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short the Act'), and order dated 27.11 .2006 wtiereby the petitioner's Review petition was dismissed. 1 have heard the counsel appeartng for the parties and perused the order impugned. A bare perusal of ordere impugned would reveat the petftioners have deposited entire amount of arrears of rent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of summons in the case. They are also depositing monthly rent within time or In advance. There is only few instances where amount of monthly rent has been K •^.^- :'1 '"^-f.. '€ ^,. a<1 / deposUed with some detay but the same has been compensated by the pet'rtioners by depositing the monthly rent in advanoe for next Goming months. 4. In view of above, in the considered oplnion of this court, the order striking out defence of the priitioners/tenant under Section 13 (6) of the Act has been passed by the trial court without appreciating the facts of the case in its proper perspedive and therefore the same Is not sustalnabte in law. 5. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, in the considered opinion of this court, grounds have been made out for interference of this court under Article 227 of the Constltution of India. Accordingly petition is allowed and the orders impugned dated 17.02.2006 and 27.11.2006 are herby set aside. No order as to cost. 6/ Since the matter is oM, it is expected that the trial court shall decide the matter expeditioudy. Sd/- N.K. Agarawal Judge Sahu ?^^'s^^^^^^^^^.^^^^