IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIL^SPUR (C.G.) CIVIL REVISIONNo. C(£> 201^ 7 (Sinqle Bench other matter) gte ei h"p , ;•'•/ \. Petitioner (Tenant) Res&ondents -1. 2. Prachi Shikshan Samiti, Kota (Regd: No. 2128 of 2003) Stadium Road, Kota RAIPUR (C.G.) Through - President, Narendra Upadhyay VERSUS The Rent Controlling Authority Collectorate, Raipur(C.G.). Shri Ramesh Kumar Shrivastava S/o Shri D.P. Shrivastava Near Sai Darbar. Tulsipur, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3. ••SVS-^:W3P%r .h^ '"vi^ ••.3, & Shri Rajesh Upadhyay S/o Shri G.P. Upadhyay Shahid Manmohan Singh Ward No. 12, Stadium Road, Kota, Raipur(C.G.) Tahsildar, Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) &felVIL REVISION U/S23E. C.G.ACCOMMODATION CONTROL ACT 1961. Particulars of the petitioner : As given in the cause title. 4. r^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION No. 96 OF 2010 b. •' PETITIONER Tenant RESPONDENTS Prachi Shikshan Samiti, Kota VERSUS The Rent Controlling Authority, Collectorate, Raipur & Others REVISION U/S 23-E OF THE CG ACCOMMODATION CONTROL ACT, 1961 (Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aflarwa!^_J.} Present : Shri VG Tamaskar, Advocate for the applicant. Shri HB Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sareena Khan, Advocate for respondent No. 2. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 28/09/2011) 1. Instant revision filed under Section 23-E of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act' is directed against the order dated 09.08.2010 (Annexure P/7), passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Raipur (for short 'RCA') in execution case No. 90(2) 2009-2010, whereby and whereunder application filed by Narendra Upadhyay, President Prachi Shikshan Samiti, Kota, for staying execution of eviction order passed by the RCA, Raipur, and affirmed by this court in Civil Revision No. 146 of 2009 vide order dated 25.08.2009 for a period of seven months to facilitate the petitioner i.e. for shifting ofthe School to some other suitable place has been rejected. 2. Shri VG Tamaskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits: the eviction order has been passed against the N\ ^ ^ G) 2 ( \^ petitioner's earlier President Rajesh Upadhyay i.e. brother of present petitioner Narendra Upadhyay without impleading the petitioner as party in the proceedings, and therefore, eviction order passed by the RCA cannot be executed against the petitioner and the RCA has committed grave jurisdictional illegality in dismissing petitioner's application. 3. On the other hand, Shri HB Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submits : the applicant herein has prayed for seven months time to vacate the premises before the RCA and now more than a year has been passed and sufficient time has been granted to the applicant to vacate the premises. He further submits so far as other objections being raised by the applicant herein in the instant revision is concerned, the same were not subject matter before the RCA and therefore the same cannot be considered here. 4. Having heard the counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the order impugned, it appears that the only prayer made by the petitioner was to grant him seven months time to vacate the suit premises and the same was rejected by the trial court. The petitioner has not vacated the premises and is in possession of the suit premises as dispossession of respondent was stayed by this court vide order dated 25.08.2010. In this way, the prayer made by the petitioner before the RCA stands satisfied. \ 'v\ 5. In view of above, 1 do not find any substance in the revision and the same being devojd of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion regarding other objections raised by Shri Tamaskar in this revision. 6. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwa! Judge Sahu ^-^^^•ws t I