f 5% X: IN E HIGH COUKT OFJUDICATUKE OFCHHAméGARH AT BILA5PUK a.) WKIT PETITION NO 25g 7i IZOOZ PETITIONEK : GOPAL CHAND MAHAPATRO Aged about 57 year's, 5/0 5hri Baluki Mahapatro, R/o House No.102, War-d No.36 Near Mandi Chowk, Torwa Bridge Koad, Torwa. ’ Tehsil and Distt., Bilaspur (C.G.). VEK5U5 e5?“ V“ 3? gPéNDENT(5) : GANEsH PRASAD DEWAN GAN WK Aged about 64— year-5, 5/0 Late 5ri Babulal Dewangan K/o Dewangan Mohalla, Kilawar‘d, Juna', Bilaspur,Di5tt., Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDEK AKTICLE é27 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR I55UANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE, ORDER (5) OR DIRECTION (5): . . .7;. j.) i XI—HC—22 26lo3I2004 Shri JA. Lohani, counsel far e petitioner. Shri Praful Bhalat, counselfo the remndent; Petitioner who is a tenant respondent has preferred this writ petition under Alticle 227 of the Co stitution of India, being aggrieved by the order dated (ism/2001 passed 8‘“ Civil Judge, Class-I, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 12/N99 whereby th defence of the petitionenhas been struck out under Section 13 (6) of e Chhattisgarh Accomnodation and Control Act, 1961. Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner herein took the disputed premises on rent from Babulal Demngen, the father of the respondent and aner deem of Babulal aewangaon, the respondent became the land lord of the disputed premises which is admided posiEon. The respondent herein tiled a civil suit in the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Class-lbBila pur, mentioned above for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of bon tide requirement. However, during the pendeney of that suit, the respo dent moved an application hr shiking out of the defence. in reply of whi the petitioner hereinsaid that the bromer of the respondent herein - Radheshyam Dewangan used to coilect the rent and since he sto d collecting the rent in me menth of November, 1998, he suited d iting. that rent before the Rent Controlling'Authority, Bilaspur. The teamed Civil Judge petitioner herein vide order dated 2 the reply of the petitioner that he shi nsidering the defence hken by the 12000 passed an order considering >uld deposit the rent within a period of e h one month and fmed the next date of hearing on 2607/2000. A perusal‘of this order revaals that Radheshyam Dewangan appeated before the Rem Controlling Authon'ty on 12/01/2000 in response to the notice issued by the Rent Controlling Authority in t proceedings in which the eeu'h'onor herein deposited the rent and sub itted his teply that he is not the landlord of-the petitioner and in fact h s bromer Ganesh Prasad Devangan, the respondent herein is the landl ln spib of knowing this tact he petitioner did not deposit the rent in eCourt‘of Rent centi'ollhg Aethodty in the name of the respondent and r he paid nor offered the rent to the respondent herein and ultimately he deposited me rert of Rs.400/- on 10/1 1/2000 in the name of responds and again he deposited the Iant d Rs.400l- on 13/11/2000. But as per the orders of me teamed C‘wil Judge, the petihoner had not d the rent in that Court. However, on 26/07/2000 he moved an appi before the Civil Judge that time may be granted to him so thathe ca withdrawthe amountfromthe Rent Conholling Authority and deposit e rent in the Civil Court. in the meantime, an application under action 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was tiled by the respo dent herein for striking out of the the Court struck out the defence on Court's order me tenant has not d ground that in compliance of the/ r/K, ited the rent. Wetfwi X-HC‘ZZ I 4r h o . ' e ' e i n e XI-HC22 K m W, Wang, Wmg I WT ggma; W 200 Wig mmmw mm1§f€éw A3, - $Wm 311% m W ms‘ Wm? Hféfvr K r Ihave heard learned counself the parties. Leamed counsel for me petiti er argued that on 26l07i2000 MK the, petitioner moved an applioation nder Section 151 of the C.P.c., for e)¢ension of time so that he can raw the amount from the Rent Controliing Authority and deposit th amount in the Cwrt. But without passing any order on his app the leamed iower Court has slruck out of the defence of the pehtione A perusal of the impugned order reveals that no request was made b the counsel for the pewoner herein that before deciding/me application the respondent for suiking out‘he defence of the petitioner application or extension of time be decided and no time wee extended by the le Civil Judge. Moreover, the amount which was deposited before the Re Controlling Authority, wasnot more than Rs.1000/- and mat was not a huge amount which the petitioner could not have deposited in the Cou of Civil Judge in compliance otthe Court's order dated 26i0612000 wit withdrawing the amount trom the Court of the Rent Controlling Aut . Therefore, in the first instance, neither a request was made by the counsel for die petitioner before the Court at the time of the passing of the impugned order nor the amount was deposited by the pehtioner in pliance of the Court's order dae'd 26/06/2000 ven when the petitione came to know on 1210112000 that tn. actual landlord is Ganesh Pra ad Dewangan, not Radheshyam Dewangan, even then till the of November. 2000, he had not deposited the rent, even aria: ordei or the Civil Judge dated 26.6.2000. Ail this shows that the ner was never sincere to deposit ' d i' , r a s h h ‘ m o ‘ ‘o the réht. Therefore, the vial Court has rightiy struck out of ihe defence of \ the petitioner. In view of‘the circumstarp‘es mentioned above. l am ofihe epinion that there is no substance in this writ petition. The‘same is iiabie to bet dismissed and it is dismissed. Sd/— L.C.BHADOO Judge :1 , x . i