^,.—- ^. ^..-..-..!._._.... IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) WRIT PETITION N0. ^~S ^T /2QQ4 PETITIONER ^ \ f^ DEFENDANT ^l^^ >^^°.^ .o<" .^^ ,,^^^^ Ganpat Rao Maratha, aged about 63 years, son of Bitturao Maratha, residence of Behind Gunj, Kharsiya, Tah. Kharsiya, Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) '!^sss VERSUS RESPONDENT PLAINTIFF Niranjan Lal Agrawal, aged about 75 years, son of Shri Bhola Ram Agrawal, resident of Mahuapali Road, Kharsiya, Tah. Kharsiya, Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ^s::.m^"' ----^.i^^iMiiiil:^^ -y XI-HC—78 Na+i?ii ww^' ^^ '^FH^PT, e>t1iy<l<o, ftdi^^< p.......^......t0.c-....H3.6.^ 3?^1I'^lf^N WT^iN^^lfe XF^T (1|^fg^^) T Shr'i Preetam TiwQri, coun^ ^ ^att^^i^r for the petitjoner. The petitioner has prefer^ed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of Ind and correctness of 1+»e order dafed 22-7-2004 passed by the learned tth 4Tn Civil Jud9e, Class-H, Rai9arh the learned trial Court has dire< arrears of rent Rs,3600A and a] rent of th@ disputed premises/ Brief facts ieading to fi!s?| ^ qu&stioning th^ i^aiity, propriet^ in Civil Suit No.l87-A/2003 whereby ;ted the petitioner herdn to deposit so to aeposit Rs,!50/- per month as i \g of this writ petition are that 1tie respondent herein fiied a suit foj- eyiction and arrears of rent a9ainst liie petitioner hersin bsfore th| failed to deposit the rent inj ^ trial Court. When th& petitioner terms of Section 13 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation (^ontrol Act, 1961, the respondent herein moved an Gppjication fo^ directing the petitioner herdn to deposst rent and that opplicatio|i was aliowed and the petitioner was directed to deposit rent as men^ioned above. Bein9 a9gri^ved by that order, the petitioner herein has pjreferred this wn'T petition. I have heard learned coun^ Learned counsel for the ei for the petitioner. petitioner submitted that in view of thespedfjc plea taken by the ^etjtioner herein in his para-4 of the written statement that the pe^itioner here.in is in possession of the XI-HC--78 3?^T15FT f<^i<=b TT^?T 'STi^T 5b^ji<^ 1 -.- 8arve ^..^ ^ ^^r ';^FIM^', ^^1^4i<o, f^Tray ^WW! «»*1ich "^ 200 ^TT^T Tra^ (^oii^^r) ^RTTW Tff^T 3T!^?f -^- in-law ond he is not tenant of th cbl^id^l^ 'HF^ff ^* fe^t <pil<^l< "^ ^RW3TY^?T ^uit property as a owner, as the ^ame was 9Jv@n to him by hi^ father- ^ resppndent herein, Ihe trial Court ought not to have passed the impu^ned order< It is an admitted position ^hat the respondent herdn has fiied the suiT for eviction and arrears |>f rent against 1+ie petitioner herein claimin9 himself to be the !<xndlor|d of the petitioner herein re9ardin9 the property in question and th|e petitioner herein has denied the relationship of iandlord and tena^t. Since the respondent has fi!ed 1+ie suit as a landlord, in that cas^ 1+se trial Court was ri9ht in possing the impugned order asking the pe^itioner heresn to deposit the rent as claimed by respondent in the suit^ It is for 1+ie respondent herein to prove that he is th& landlord of the petitioner and there is o. reiation^'^of landlord and tenojit between them, if he wjll fajj to proye the same, 1+ien the sui^ wiil be dismissed automatically. Therefore, I do not find any ijle^aiity ond infirmity in the impugned order. The writ petition is iiable -|-o be dismissed and it is accordin9ly dismi^^ed. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge