IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) w.P.(Art 227) No. gétQO of 2009 %%§5§@ mmh s f” PETITIONER z: Arvind Kumar S / o. Ved Defendant Prakash Garg, aged about 32 years, Owner Royal Printing Press, Normal School Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Versus RESPONDENTS : l) Amit Kumar son of Jamuna Lal Plaintiffs Jaiswal, aged about 32 years :2) Abhay Kumar son of Jamuna Lal Jaiswal, aged about 28 years, :3) Arun Kumar son of Jamuna Lal Jaiswal, aged about 26 years, all resident of Link Road, Tarbahar, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) {3" WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA . H 3% / WWMLWNgo‘a 2009 mam (WE?) ’ggg‘mf‘arm- mm ®am ammm mm *Wm .B. Hon’bleAShri‘JusticeN. .06.2009 Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocam with Shri LK. Gupta, dvocate for the petitioner. Shri Anand Gupta, Advocate far the respondent No. 1 & 2. Heard on admission. The instant petition is dire 6dr against the ordet datedr 02.2009 (Annexure P/9), passed the trial court, whereby, the plication filed by the respondent under Section 13 (2) of CG ccommodation Control Act (for sho v ‘Act’), has been allowed and e application hledby the petitioner nder Section'l5l of CPC has en rejected; I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as ell as counsel for the respondent No. l & 2. The learned trial judge passed the order dated 24.022009 u der Section ‘13 (2) of the Act by fixing the provisional rent at the r te of Rs. 850/- per/month; based on written agreement dated 3‘ .10.89. The dispute raised by the petitioner was that as per the iricome tax record, the rate of rent is Rs. 200/-. y i i pk j /, ” K., 6 H ‘ollowing grounds: l. ll. 111. On application made ~the plaimiff under Scetion 13 (2) ofthe Act, the trial court has to decide the same in accordance with law and the trial coun, based on written agreement, h Emd the provisional rent at a the rate of Rs. 850f- w ich is not illega1 and perverse. The tea} controversy r garding amount of rent would be certainly decided both the parties and fia ing issue in this regard. Shn' Agrawal admits that an issue has already been framed by the trial court. The application filed b the petitioner'under Section 151 of CPC has been ismissed by. the trial court on the ground. that, rent @ Rs. 850/- has not been / deposited by the petitio er for issuance of possession warrant in terms of 0rd passed by thetrial court on the trial court atter hearing In my opinion the petition deserves to be dismissed on the mm ................................................... W200 mWQaigaw) 31%?!‘7W Ewiaigam WWW WW1§WW $31‘W311éw Sahu 01.12.2008 and th ore, the trial court would. certainly consider the issuance of possession warrant aiier depositing ren‘ @ Rs. 850/— per- month; Therefore, no illega'ty or irregularity has been committed by the tn'al curt. However, in the interest of justice, it is direc V if the petitioner depositsthe entire amount of ren @ Rs. 850l- per month as directed by the triai months, then the trial ourt shallvallow the petitioner to deposit the same a d out of which the amount of rent @ Rs. 650/—shall ot be disbursed to the plaintiff till hnal disposaliof th suit & disbursement of which shall be decided by th court in accordance with law at the time of final dis sal ofthe §%? urt, within a period of two /\ I.t if t mm W 200 mwqaiaaw) mg mmm mam wm $aimané¥r