M INTHEHIGHCOURTOFGHHATnSGARHATBILASPUR fC.G.) W.P.f2271 No. ^%^ A2011 PETITIONERS Plaintiffs ^l. 2. .^Itll^^ ^ ^>^<^ ^^ ^'^"' ^••'.^. f-^y -4. 5. Smt. Snehlata Reddy "aged about 42 years w/o- late Surya Prakash Reddy, ; Pankaj Reddy aged about 28 years, S/o- late Surya Prakash Reddy, Dharmendra Reddy aged about 26 years, S/o- late Surya Prakash Reddy, Dhirendra alias Monu Reddy aged about 24 years, S/o- lafe Surya Prakash Reddy, Kumari Megha Rgddy ageda bout 20 years, D/o- late Surya Prakash Reddy, All R/o- Jeckab Chal, Link Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 11/: :,';^,'.-'. •:.-.. Santosh Vishwakarma alias Rajkumar Vishwakarma aged about 35 years, S/o- Virendra Vishwakarma, R/o- -leckab Chal, Link Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District- Bilaspur (C.G.) WRITPETITIONUNDERARTICLE2270FTHE ; CONStlTUTION OFINDIA. ; 1. PARTICLILAROFTHEPEnTIONERS: ^ AsnfTentionedinthecausetitle. : . •.••'^sp^i.<:i. VERSUS RESPONDENT Defendant 1 3° HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONERS RESPONDENT W.P.(227) No. 585/20011 Smt. Snehlata Reddy and others Versus Santosh Vishwakarma SB:- HON'BLESHRI N.K. AGAKWAL,_J PRESENT:- Shri F.S. Khare, Advocate, for petitioners. ORAL ORDER (31-1-2011) The order passed on 14-12-2010 by IInd Civil Judge Class I, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 26-A/2008 is under assail in the instant petition. Facts as projected by the petitioners are that vide order dated 14-9-2009, the respondent's defence was sto-uck offby the trial court under Section 13(6) of the C.G. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (briefly the Acf) and, the respondenf was notentitled to adduce evidence in the case but vide order impugned the trial court has permitted the respondent to adduce evidence and therefore, the order impugned is patently illegal and deserves to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the order impugned. There is specific provision under Section 12 of the Act that no suit shall be filed against a tenant for his eviction from any accoraraodation except on one or more of the grounds mentioned in sub-section 1 thereof. Section 13 applies to each and every suit for eviction which is filed on one or more of the grounds mentioned in Section 12(1) offhe Act. Section 13(6) of the Act contains provisions for striking out of the defence against evictipn of a tenant. The plaintiff/landlord is required to plead ground of eviction and the defendant/tenant in reply files his defence in respect of such grounds. The sub-section contemplates striking out of such defence pleaded by the defendant. It is not concerned with any other plea or defence of the defendant which is not related to the ground of evicdon. It 4. is still open to the respondent/defendant to plead and prove his case on the grounds not related to the ground of eviction as envisaged under Section 12 oftheAct. In the instantcase, the respondent's defence was struck off by the trial court against the ground of evicdon. The trial court vide impugned order permitted the respondents to adduce evidence not on the grounds of eviction but on the grounds other than as provided under Secdon 12 of the Act._ In view of above, leamed trial court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in passing the order impugned. The petition being devoid of substaiice, deserves to be and is hereby disinissed. ^—~~ ' Sd//- i ;, .'^•N.K.Agrawal V Judge