c< ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUKE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASP ABPf-ICANT ^''ETITIONER (2- Smt. Saraswati Gupt'a aged about 73 years Wd/o Late Anandi Prasad Gupta, resident of Azad Chowk, Raj nandgaon (C.G.) VER S U S Rqs'pondent Fon-Applicant ./" --'': .^^••" ^:.:i.0::-91 :n ^^^Rajendra Kumar Khandelwal aged 38 years S/o Sbri Deendayal Khandelwal . Prop. Shivshankar Rajendra Kumar Khandelwal resident of Azad Chowk, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) <-• ,•' .<» •S.s ^./ <y REVISION PETITION U/S 23 E OF THE M.P. / G.G. ACCOMMODATION CONTROL ACT 1961 1 4- XI-HG—78 ?^.w S^f ^T f^Tf n^?r sh+iis^ *11*«11 a>*1ieh ^sf "41'41d-4, 8>'<al*<<is, fayiyy __..<£^.....i.^^......... ••^200^ sf^v inw ('^f^?) TOilWdfTO an^l S.B, Hon'ble Shri Jusfice N.K 22.10.2009 Shri Satyawan Agrawaf Advocates for appiicant. Shri Anup Majumdar, Ac|( WiSh the consent ofthe The instant revision 28.02.2003, passed by th^ Rajnandgaon (for short 'RTA'] whereby and whereunder t^i applicant/landlord under Secl Control Act, 1961 (for short 't The brief facts of the ca^ herself to be iandlord of spe< Section 23-J of the Aet, prefer 23-A(b) of the Act for eviction After issuance of noticd case and fited an application seeking permission to contest The RTA heard the par impugned order dated 28.02.; the eviction petition ofthe appl ebl^^d4lT1 i?TR?ff ^f 'fecst <Ft|^.l< ^sffinsn^fr with Shri Hemant Solapurkar, ^ocate for respondent. rtarties, the matter is heard finaily. filed against the order dated 1^ Rent Controlling Authority, in case No. 2A/90 of 2000-01, fe application preferred by the |on 23-A(b) of Accommodation Act') has been dismissed. |e are fhat, the applicant claiming >{;ial category as provided under red an application under Section (f non-applicant. non-applicant appeared in the ^nder Section 23-C(1) of the Act t|ie application. rf:ies on this application but vide 2p03, passed fjnal order rejecting ?ant. , ^'13^... '"'A""a<8> '\ s + r •ti.-<rf' J sy XI-HG—78 SII^T^ilfSFfW ISD^I saiit *11HC'(T (t»*11<*> 3'er "41<41<yl<4, ®ti1'H'i|s,fac'ii'y^i _...C^,,J.^... Wt 200 3 sn^T Tra^ (lj°ii^'!i<ti) TOirar^tef sn^i ^ Shri Agrawal, learoed co[ submits that the order passed jurisdiction inasmuch as whi| permission to defend or to contjsst couid allow or reject the said eviction petition filed by the afl| passed by the RTA, being with|: aside and the matter may be| decision afresh. pnsel appearing for the applicant py the RTA is illegal and without |e hearing the application for the eviction petition, the RTA ajtiplication, but cannot dismiss the jplicant, and therefore, the order |3ut jurisdiction, is liable to be set remitted back to the RTA for *r Per contra, Shri Majumdi non-appiicant supported the passed by the RTA is well rea( upheld. I have heard the learned and perused the record. It is trite law that while permission to contest the tenant/non-applicant under Sei^ could aliow or reject the saine| petition itseif, and therefore, orcj iiiegal and without jurisdiGtion. ^i^<n<(1n ^WV^t ^f 'f^sl' <^*)+$K ^silwsn^r ', learned counsel appearing for cfrder and submit that the order ifeoned order and deserves to be counsel appearing for the parties hearing the application, seeking eviction petition filed by the. :ion 23-C(1) of the Act, the RTA but cannot dismiss the eviction |er passed by the RTA is patently <?^ '^. .' ^' ^ !*-XI-HG—78 sn^T w Wi^ 'S^ •^WM^, ytII'H^Ko, fsKDI'Hy *1MCTI th*ll«h ;^ 200J» sn^T 'vsv ('^fg'i^) TOIIW^fW 311^1 in view of the abbve, t Rajnandgaon, is set aside and STA, Rajnandgaon, to decide tl^ application seeking permission own merits in accordance with l^ T'ne parties are directe] Controlling Authority, Rajnandg^ The revision is accordinal <t>l<<[tTi^|*i *il*fcfl ^f f^^ <{«1^1< ^'afRfqsiA?! |ie order passed by the RTA, he matter is remitted back to the |e eviction petition as well as the b contest the claim afresh on its iw after hearing both the parties. ii to appear before the Rent :on, on 09.11.2009. l allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal •Judge