Ih ^••'.•.ii^ COU5T OF CHHATTISGARH AT_B!LASPUR ..B SHRI JUSTICS yiJ-AY EUS2AS SKSIVASTAVA CIVIL REVISION N0. 17S/200q. ^BstSs.yeshssiE Sbzivssstav&j, 63 years, Oh.Q'iST^s ^US^. y ^ Q tJS^SiillSS ^Tt^—.—wA £3TG]p3fS£XO£g^S^luilnS 1S1S.OSS) Ja®'atiarCIiowK, Dwce. CG. Mr. Pakai. Agrawal, Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. P. P. Sabu, Counsel for tlie respondent. ;^....,,-^.g:,:-^ l^ :"';'t-;?.1*' -;:' (DATED 15/03/2006) This revision ffled under Sectiou 23 E of the Chliattisgarh Accoininodatiou Control Act (for short, "the Acf} is dh-ected against the order dated 08/09/2004 'oassed bv tlie Rent Coutrollmg Authoritv (for short, "fhe Authoritv°*i in Case No. T3- A/90/2002-2003, wherebv application f.1ed imder Section 23-A of f the Act for recovery of possession bv the landlord lias been ••v- disinissed. o'1 ^j Petitioner claimiag to be landlorel uiider Section 23-J of the Act, filed an appUcation averruig fhcit_thg suit preniises is 1'eauired bv hini for his bona fide non-residential DUI-DOSC i.e.. for •f.fi-i- !E«SB doing the profession as aa Advocate. Respondent opoosed same. Application was filed along with afEidavit, The case was fixed for evidence on 23/06/2004, oetitioner bv filiag affidayit adduced liis evidence. On tlie sanie dav he also filed an -V tiis cross examination stateinents of other witoesses. The Autboritv closed tbe evidence of fhe petitioner a.nd vide order dated 06/ 08; 2004 disinissed tlie appUcation filed by the petitioner for cross examuiation and xccording fhe statenients of his otber witnesses. Respondent did not adduce anv evidence and closed his case. Leamed Autiioritv on fhe ground that the wituesses have uot been cross examuied, therefore, fhe evidence tendered by fhe petitioner by affidavit caunot be accepted as evidence and therefore, learaed Authori-ty held tiiat tlie petitioners failed to prove tbeir bona fide requireDien.t and disinissed tlie application. 3) Under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, orocedure for recordiag fhe stateiaent of witaiesses has been described and acconding to tliat procedui'e, examination-in-chief of witaess shall be ou. afiidavit ajid his crosa exainination and re- exaiaination has to be taken either by fhe Court or by the Coinnussioner appoinled by it. Therefore, when the petitiouer tendered exaniination-Mi-chief on afBdavjt arid also fUed an a-oulication for gett.mg cross exaiiiination don.e. it was for tl'ie Autiiority to coniplete t.iie evidence' in accordaace with procedure laid down under Order 18 RuJe 4 of tbe C.P.C.. instead doing so, leamed Authoritv "disinissed the application for cross examiiia.tion aad recordiag statenient of other witnesses. Here. it is not out of place to ineution tb.at the leamed autjiority also did not talie care to appreciate the provisions contained iu Section 23-D (iii) of (he Act. 4} Therefore, the unpugned order as weU as fhe order dated 06/08/2004 rejectiag the applica.tion for cross examination ofwitaesscs and for recorduig stateinent ofotherwitnesses filed bv the petitioner, passed bv tlie Aiithoritv are set aside aD.d fhe niatter is icinanded to fhe authoritv for decidine tlie niatter afresh in tlie light of observatious niade bv this Coiut ancl after affording proper opportunity ofheariug to bot.h tbe parties. Both the parties are directed to appear before tbe Authoritv on 08/03/2006. Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge Raju ^ y sf"^^