^ c IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P. No. 35^ of 2004 PETITIONERS 1. Defendants 2. Shahid Mohammad, S/o. Shaikh Mohammad, aged 32 years, Smt. Sehenaaz Begam, W/o. Shaikh Mohammad, No Occupation, Both Resident of Near Mission School, tajendra Nagar, (Ghasiapara), Tahsil-Bilaspur, r.) ^^H^t<a:ienara iNagar, ^c<^ .X^1*1*^''" ...••"District- Bilaspur (C.G.) y^....--" .^i< .^<^>c>'" ^L. ^RESPONDENTS 1) VERSUS Shankar, S/o. Tahsmal Dhanwani, Aged about 28 years, 2) Dilip, S/o. Govindmal Dhanwani, aged about 25 years. 3) Kesumal Dhanwani, S/o. Govindmal Dhanwani, aged about 68 years. Occupation of Respondent no.l to 3 - Trader, Resident of Respondent No.l to 3 - Rajendra nagar (Ghasiapara), Tahsil - Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4) GulJEaar Begam, W/o. Abdul Ajiz, aged about 61 years, Resident of Bhilai Sector - 6, Street No. 39, Quarter No. 'l-A', Distt. Durg (C.G.) y WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22^0? CONSTITUTION_OF ^y^"^. INDIA '^ '::_:.._^-._.*^._ ^) ^FR'IT "3^Er ^jtqKrt^, ^Tll^^Ko, i^<rlT<T3^ Wte-^-^-o--^^^200 W^T^Tl^rfeT ^T^Ri^lCTf^ r ^IT^T '1R^ (^fys<i4) ^RHW ^ft?T 3rH^r 24-1-2005 GM^I<yt<fll WR^? ^f fet2^ <^1t$i< ^ ^fftn 3i?^r Smt. HamidQ Siddique, coijnsei for tiie petitjoners. Heard on Gdmission. The p&titioner^ have p^ of the Constitution of India qjjestiQnJng The legality, proprie-ry and correctne^ of the order dated OJstrict Judge, 8jlaspur in Civil) of The petitioners herein under the learned Additjonal DSstrict the petitionersherein. Brief fact^ kading to | respondsnts No.l to 4 her&i^ :erlre.c! thi$ petition und^r Artich 227 4-8-2004 passed by the 3rd Additiond Suit No.42-A/2002 on an appiicotjon Order 1 Ruie 10 of the C.P.C. whereby Tucig^ has r©J@ct©dthe oppjicatlon of itin9 of thi^ writ petStion ar@ t+iat Hdve fifed a dvil suit against -tne petjtioners herein on tbe groun|J that the house mentioned jn paro-l of the pbint demarcotBd a^ 3T, scheduie of the pldnt Is tHe ho^ is the owner of that house. re^iding in whoie hou^e. The p^titioner No.2 herein i^ th©tenant of respondent No,4 herein in the portion which was wjth Kesumal LoxmctndQS snd NGr-ayandas vicis sf, ~33,, ^3, W, ^. 3T in the attachsd ise of respondent No.4 herein and she Three tenants of ^ulzar Begum are ^Qrtion.a'i, s, ^T, '?!, ^, ^, sr at l+ie rate of Ks,50/- per (nonth sinc^ lon9» In one portion Kesumal ^uizar was the tfinant who has sxpir^d lieaving behind four sons mid ths las been purchased by his sons namely Ksgistr,' daied 31st AW 1989. Out of GRPRJ—FS/350— 12/2000—50,000. ^^T "4i<Mi'(n<i, ^Tii'9)i<6,1®i(yii-y^< ^i^^r^i^ ^?T1W^?T ^i^ L-:..J-- €."-.;'- ^WtT^W^ '^200 ^il^T 'q^RT (^^^?) i^iw ^rii^T ^^ three tenonts of 6ulzar Begum, been shown adja^nt to the porj map* Plaintiff Nos.l and 2 Shanl| from ^ulzar Begum. Notice wa^ «§»i<4fa<il<i^i^r^^ fe^ '^^gK ^^to^^ on@ is Jabbar, portion of which h<xs non of 1+ie petitioners herein in th© ar and Dilsp havs purchased the land 9iy^n to th^ petition^r No.2 her^in for rent from 1-11-98 to 31-1?}-98, but the petitioner No.2 herein refu^ed to pay' the rent. There|:ore, the ^ujt ha^ been filed on the ground of JGndlord and tenanfsjrelationship against tiie petitioners herein, Th^ dcfence of the p^titi<| tenants of the respondents. ts^o rent is outstanding aaainst them. This is their ancestral house,! appiication under Order 1 iSule 10 le. sons of Jabbar as defendant^ further mentioned that certain ol iners herein is that th^y are not 1^e The petltroner^ her^in fiicd an of th^ C-P.C- for adding four persons mentioned in l+?e c^pjication. It was t'hsr person^ are residing in ti"i©arcG which was purchased by the piaii|tiff from piaintiff No.4. They have not bsen arraysd as defendan^s whereas, they are in possessipn, therefore, th^y are th^ n&c^ssa^y party and they ^houid b^ array^d as defendants. The learned triai Court a-jter hearing the aroument^ rejected lf»eappiication hoiding that the ||laiintiffs havementioned in the pidnT that the defendants are in poss^.ssion of iond ^ ^ ^ST, ^ ^, 3^ and GRPRJ-^S/350—12/2000—5QX)00. portion cn which Jabbar'opoflfloifiionha?b@®nsngwn |n th^ ^ch^<i|tie^ T f ^^ ^i'4w^, ^-fliwKa, f^rcr^: } ^i^r^t^it^ WT ^R^T ^SJ^ Barve ^npwff^^n^ ••^200 -^li^N ^^ (^l^^) ^^ro^^t^T^^ ^%' s^ annex^d with the pldnt, no suilj heirs and no t^lief has been are not necessary party and ^irr^ Perusa! of th^ impugnecJ shows that the respondents h^ petitioners herein for eyictiori house markedas ^. '?T, '?!', ^, ^ heirs of Jabbar has been shcj respondcnt^/pbintiff^ hcsive 3 herein on the ground thert- 1+iey of Jabbar, ds mentioned in herein, are not n&csssary part^ rejected by The triai Court. Learned counsei for the jjiegaiity and infir'mity in the <j liable to be dismissed ond it is a^ Consequently, M.(W.)P. N| t^e ^^lfa^^ ^N^ ^?1^t^ ^q4$K i^ ^t^? ^^ h<s3 been fited agdnst Jabbar and his )ught QgainsT Jabbar, therefore, they e has been rejected. order/ pbint and writt^n statement ;re»n have fiied a civii suit Qgdnst the and arrear^ of rent regarding the 3T in the annexed ^cheduie 3T and the wn in 1+ie adjoining <ond. Ssnce the >uoht relief a9ainst :J'he petitsoners asqe their tenants/therefor'e, the heirs applicatjon fsled by tfle petitioners and the application ha^ been rightiy petitipners has fojled to point out any »rder impugned. The wr-it petition is ;cording!y dismissed. 5.3073/2004 algo stancis disposed of. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge GRPRJ—FS/350—12/2000—50,000.