isa iil m^^a' .S^^:S WsMSiS^ffiSs KgigSi'&'Ssi St¥'KisSSSS sfr iN'a-iEi-ii^Biiti-ii^wiiiiuaiBai^i*-^^ •;a's^iii^^giii'' -i^-^:'::,:<''^::'-:^;^ 1:' :t:::':.':^iN^(2^^N©feM^;it^^ WR]?1-^E^'TI@iaiyRMi@8iRagilB^^^IS5tli!I: ^;:?-/I;'t©iffl'2'FBSUiU WI^^?':;y:lh':^ :ms Petitioher Defehdant ftespondehts Plaintiffs ^C>iw<3tl<ojp^iiHicl<;§/o^l-ct-t-^Aftuki.ind :^^Bih||Ti;t|Sallf|fe,|c@^^^48,'ye;(n'^,|Ri/& .:Kc^ll^^|l<i^s?:|l^ac[.^ifiBi:^IIS]:iai'a,; ^^nanelg%n5|^Mp1^aBli)y^^'w!;;:',:^ 'Versusi^:'^::^ :';Y;:''..:'':;;: ; ''^^ 'Srn|B^ir,iti§ai,.lW(3|^ci'ofilt.a-fe. .fi5ad||esKyart)|::iyMnde1wal,%gect ^8aps,':^'|R/o; .^ ^•fiudakhi.i.ll^ tRiajnanclgiEiffn. (<3hh<rl"t'issidrh); i :'iKy.j^angcE|<liandelwal,D/o^ :Radl'iesKpini^KKandelwal,|j !YeBF|,::''|%R)'&'S,^i|(.ielal<hu^ l^r^Hdg^on^(Ctihi:i(ftisgar'J^ iSct- ;:« l. PAl^Ct<l.^PiSl© -ij|-(B88iaSBilslfiI a iilMl iiaroi ^':iWilESII •®;1ii iffi^au mwisa9 ^tfn.s-a^ ^^["\. ^,. I-HC—78 ^^6L TST '<{ww^, yflly'is, [qcii'yy . to.PCt-^).^".^^0/ <DI(IT a>fli<b /^.. 200 8' sn^I'q^q;' (ipfg^lT sn^i ^iT K.-uv W 31TO1 »t!l=B TRnw^ifetsn^i <=bl'irf?T4t;i ^W<^ ^ ^^\ <^lt$K ^sifinaii^r S.B. Hon'bl®Shri Justice NJ K, Agarwal 27-07-2009 Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, Shri Anand Shukla, cour| With the consent of parties, 1+ie matter is heard f 2. The instant petition i^ dated 19-09-2008 (Annexur^ Judge, Class-I, Rajnand9aon whereby ond whereunder the petitioner's appiication und| Chhati'isgarh Accommodation the Acf). | 3. Brief facts of the cas4 and arrears of rent has be4 herein against the petitioner| that the rate of rent was petitioner herein fi!ed his wri[ 3) and in para 5 although i1^ paying rent even before fili^ig Counsei for the petitioner. sel for respondents NO.I& 2. the learned counsel for the jnally. directed against the order P-1) passed by First Civil in Civil Suit No.l-A/2008 trial Court has rejected the l^r Section 13(2) of the IControl Act, 1961 (for short are that a suit for eviction [n filed by the respondents in which they have pieaded |Rs.l300/- per month. The |t-ten statement (Annexure P- was admitted that he was of suit ©Rs.1300/- per T^ XI-HC—78 3D^[ W ft-fl'* TT^ff Sff^T sh^i<?s '3^ •<ii<iici<4, wnly'Ko, fsKniyy . wPO'^') Ho. 5'fcfco WRMI tbHKsb 200? Stl^'ff 'cl^^ (1clfj«<<(I) ?^nw ^ifro 3ii^i -^- month but the same wa respondents illegally and, tl^erefore, provisional rent is required to be fixed. 4. Per contra,Shri Anan<i the respondents drawn the at^-ention of this Courttowards the rent agreement (Annexur^ R-l) filed with his reply and submitted that even as per a^ of suit, rate of rent was R| petitioher was paying the sam rent, and therefore, there cdmission of the petitioner statement and in view of Ai learned Tria! Court has rightl^ Section 13(2) of the <ibl^i^41-1 ^FTH^f "^ 1^1 TTai^R ^?aiRn sn^i being coiiected by the Shukla, learned counsel for reement at the tiine of fiiino s.1300/- per mon-rii and the s before he fell in crrears of s no dispute looking to the in para 5 of the written anexure R-l, agreement, the ' passed the order. ^hhattis9arh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 readsas unfer'. 13(2) If any suit or pi^oceeding referred to in sub-section (1), there )s any dispute as to the amount of rent payah^le by the tenant, the Courtshall, on a plea r^iade either by landlord or tenont in •Hiat behal-fl which shali be taken at the ear!iest opportuni^-y during such suit or- -i- 311^)^1 R-li* WIT3n^lW!tiS •?=-J ^--Ji^l-i^, ^Tiiy-'!'s, !si^!-H4< ^,pC^'2-:>-)^/°'^-&4o/ •WE?Tr^;TJ^"-"'---"-----"-"-"-C^200. w^vi^t. (' s?) WiIW ^ftt 3(1^1 3 proceeding, fix a rea^onabl relation to the accomh'iodation or paid in accordanc^ sub-section (1) and reasons to be recorfcled any plea on this ac^ount stage." le provisional rent, in i, to be deposited with the/provisions of |io Court shall, save for in writing, entertain at cny subsequent facie dispute regarding rate qiiqTaqt^ IITH^J if fSt^ 7^R?F •^.afw sn^i 5. A bare perusal of S^ction 13(2) of the Act would reveal that for invoking prc^vision, there must some prima- of rent but looking to the fact situation of this case, ther^ was no dispute even prior to filing of the suit. The le4rned Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application. The petitioner has failed to point out any illegalityor pe^versity in the order impugned teading to mcinifest injustice so as to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. .Therefore, the petition is dismissed. 6. However, three months' time is granted to the petitioner to deposit the enfire arrears of rent before the XI-HC—7S »flW11tblich 3^"4i<<ici<i, »fl1'M'i<c, fqciiyy . upc^t-^)^o-~^~^4^ TF^ZOOg SI^T •q^qr (ipfg^q) 311^1 ^iT R-il'* HSTT 3n^?T $h*iieh irenw ^ifta sn^i 4- *iifd41-< wwif ^l' fs^t <r»i»(i< ^rsjfwan^i Trial Court. tiil then Trial under Order 13(6) of the C.< 7. It is also observed tf petitioner reg<irding recovei] month forcibly, shall be dec| on its own merits after fr<| without be.mg influenced by 8. No order as to costs. ^ourt shall not pass any order ?. Accommodation Control Act. int the question raised by the y of the rent © Rs.1300/- per ded by the learned Trial Court iming the issue in this regard 1+iis order. Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge