7 PETITIONER:- DEFENDENT No.l 3^\ ^' ^o.y^.A .•-°'° ^lT^^0 ".^^' RESPONDENTS :- PLAINTIFF IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WA f227) No. ^3LllteoiO r" ', Mohammed Aslam alias Mujahid S/o Late Mohammed Quasim, Aged about 63 years, Resident of Samad Chawl, Near Press Club., Idagah Road Masanganj Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus ^ 1. Smt. Farhat Kausar Ali W/o Syed Majid Ali, Aged about 55 years, Teacher, Govt. School, House ofRauf Armafure, Lane by the side of Choudhry Traders, Masanganj Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) ^" 2. Kazi Abdul Ghafar Khan S/o Late Abdul Samad Khan, Aged about 73 Years, Idgah Road, in Front ofBajpai Tower, Masanganj Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Kazi Abdul LatifKhan S/o Late Abdul Samad Khan, Aged 69 years, Idgah Road, In firont ofBajpai Tower, Masangang, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, (C.G.) WRIT PETITION_UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITAVRITS,DIRECTION/DIRECTIONS, ORDER/ORDERS ETC. DEFENDENTS 1 m. .1 -'I. .ft- '^ ft- SL o; 'M ! 1 1 s.f 1 •%;.: ;i' M:; :^{ 3 -^.wm gu. f .s.—§- ffl i»/ •^ik... i :%':! ^l' 11t ^l 1 1 ^ & 1 t-1 ^^;'::i w ^" :1^ ^•'Si: l;:s. S'^M' ^ ^•'•^- ? 1 M .€1 ^^^ ':;^^£;]:ii .^•:: lz 1 |;..j 1 1sII 1 w.I ^;CL ^•-t ::2iS3;;SJ»; ?II'S. tlii jjiw a..;i?»}.'?.':':3.: SISIIs 1l^ \^.l^ 11 •-t- aln»h ^ t & ^11 11 t 51:;: m 1 N •I s ff ..c^ •^ :^•I. 1:^i ,& 13:' ^ M^ o'- lt».. F i^ i1 ^ 1 wi 1 iI: 1@! ^s o';. i? ! ^: ^.st 11i' ::^- ifl^-:'.. iS^^;?Sl;a^^^.;V?^^^^^ 'fi^^®^ ^'t*i -\.' -^- (3) The ^at Court ol'Cwt Judge G(s^& - id^ft witti ^e appisa^ Ssction 13(2) of ihe Aet, 1961 and wte (te onterda^ O^tl^N)? declyeri ttiat the provtsionai rent of aGWMnmoda^ort shalt be Rs.1W- (iunr^ I^ndenGyof the sutt. 1 (4) In ^gust,2008^©R{a{n^m!Ov^anappli(^onui^ 17ofCP^.foram^dsr^parg^ph13^1^epSatntto^e^^^t^ arrears of fent of Rs.40,€XX)^it shoup be syfc^tttute^ by tte fi9V^42,0(X^ and 1he valuafen of the suit bej sul^ui^ I^F the figyies TS^KXy-. ^ Tt^ <•;. . . , . ^ •:; .^ ; •/ . • ' . ; .. ,, , '.' . ; , ; ', ; • .', .1, l^rned CivlS JydgQ.finumg^^aliowingfrieapplicationwoytdfaketheyuti outsiyQ the pecuniary juFtsdtction, d^emed it propefto fetum the for in the Court haylng valuation. (5) The pla{n^ ther^after preferred the syit mj^e C<%irt^^^ ^ Jydge on 25/11^2(M)8 ^id thereafter moyed an a l alion onder Section 13^) of tie ^t, 1^1 6nj1^)2^)Q9, The Mefwds^petftkmeF mw@d an applscation und&r Section 13^) of th©Act, 1J981 Gn S^^ugu^, 201 Q. The uefendant has atso llted his written statement {n the Subs^yerrt suit on 0^tt March, 200$. The Seamsd trial Court tias ^tiowed th©plain^¥ps Ibr Sutking out defence of tiie defendanVpeKtloner, (6) Shri K.A. ^issari, l^med Sentor ^lvoca^ woutd argue 1hat ttie impugnedQtu^tsex^cieHte^iamldehyrelhepjOvisie^^s^ as the same suit has been pr^entwi to a C^ourt havingijyrisdicfion after fie w^ tncreased by the ptatntiff and thus the eaFder oNer pass^i by fie Court of Civil ^udge fixing the provisjonal r^ woutd cc^nye ^ ^^ He wjutu also afgue that;in any wf^ f^af^w^i^^K^w^^^wwe coutdnozha^been^ssedln^glvenset^faete by him It^power ynderSe(^ni13^Qf^^isTi<^ ^ 3- ^ CourtshoytdhavetekentheeR^regamutofclreymstenTOtoapplyte^^ ho^nwrer, in ttie ateence ufj such appreKlafion the tmpugn^i desewesto be set-aside. 1 (7) Shri Als Asgar, tearned counsel for rsspondent No.1?'lanusor<l has thatthe provisson conta{ned|irt Section 13(6) ofthe Act, 1961 is ctear In terms and whenever a defauttlisRtade bythe'ten^it in maksng ^yment of rent withih ttie time mentioned lln i^ie provlsion, ttie conseqyen^s woytd fotlow. He has ttiat tiie ^tioner has commttted yetayli in payrnent of rent knowtng tudy welt fcat ttie eariier order is not oi^ratsve, thersfore the is not a case wor8~? Inteiference. (8) Having hearu leameu counsel for the parties, this Cwjsrt is of the that the order by the Court syffera from as once the tenant has ralsed a dispy'te regarding rsts ^ rent In his wri8@n s^tement fitedi c^ 0^h March, 2^. $t ss the dufy ofihe Courtto 11xthe prowslonal reru. In any ^se when tte tenant has subsequently moved an appHcation under -Section 13(2) of the Act, 1%1 on 3tfh August, 2010, much b^ore th©impugned order was pass&d.lt wouid be necessaiy for ttie Court to deal witti ttie issue regardinQ ixatton of provislorral rent before passing orders on the appilcation under Seetion 13(6) of the Act, 19S1. DeaHng wth both the appllcatjons sm'iuttaneously and ^ite the appilcation for strilong ou~t defence and tlltereafter rejecSng ttie Section 13(2) ofthe Act, 1961 Is impropw. (9) tn the matter of .Awadesh Narayan Mishra vs. Mst Kysym Bal tn 1S69 MPU Note 75, GoiraSkrishna vs. Mahavlr Kymar a«d othsrs reported in 157^ JLJ Note 48, BachchooWiai vs. Premanand ;'.-.."• •••;.: ..•.••-•-•'•:'l\'^-'':;li,\^ ,:.'. 1'-'':-' .•'..,.^':'l'/L,''..^i.':,,:.;.':':'... reporteu in AtR 1S76 MP 8, JivraRibhai and aiwther vs. III! -Q%" i 'c^ ^ -^- ftmarsinghiQpwt^sn 1972 MPU 785, Qsfoorshahvs.S^ repQrteuinl9?8MPi^Note13^MP.HighCoyrtb^se e<»^^^ an ordersyiking €>utde^ceofWe|tenariitwjtti<^<te^ lixayon of pi^isipnal rett ts iH^ Seetion 13(6) of the Act is not raandatofy. Slinilarly in tie ii^w ^ Shyamacharan Sharma ¥s.Dhar^mdasT^»rtNin I^O^^^^I^ Hon'bte Supreme Court h^ h^tjtsgt the Court h^| discretiw under Secfiyn ^ 13(6) M sfr|i% out or not to strifce pyt defenCe ansd a iurttier;uliscre^n ^ condohe default and extend time fbr Idypostt w payinent of montfily reni after w^^^^au^. ; 1' ^ ^:--':;;'-''' '. . .^ :.'''''' ' Y. .'\^i^ <10) In the presentc^e^e issue r^ardingtb^on ofprwislonai rer^^w^ deaJtw bytt»eearSlerCouriofCivi{Jud9eC{^s'-{an^^^®saWorder the rent was fixed at Rs.1(K)/- permonth. Even if|, on technical tertm, tey ^rQserttsultisdi1fe rHfromfte^{jlersyit,ft the same ^Utt yf evictiQn wNch h^ been prssehN^ fc^fot®ttie suteequent Court afte? amendlng ^ valy^tm ctause. Thys, teeping |n^^^^^ {anguageofSec^on 13^ oflhe Ai^> 1^1 and Wjueilaat pronuuhe^ that th®sa'd is not mandatoiy ar^ the pr^sion only TO dlscretionon^eCoyrttodealwtyiahunscrupytoust^^whoNI^^ r^nt to ttie landturci in spite of havlng been served tti^ notice^ ttre- ^mirt, however, ^e pre^ent is hot a ease ^ teat hatore. {i^m^ G^ Should haw exereised tte jiKiicN discr^vn t^ consNeiing ^ie enSr^ facte andtecl^roundofttiesultlnerfirit^thepi^oyssyft^ho^ver^^^G^ nasfailedtotakeintoconsiderattonatliherelevantjaspecAm^^ passlngtheimpugnedoRier.whichNl^^int^^a^^yy^^^^ cohsequ&ncesonfttedefeHdant'srtght<^hearin9inthesui^^ls^€^ ^ie Qpinlon fiat itie present te a fitcase for interferenc®under ^rtieSe 227 of ;m^ w- ^ - ^i^' : ^ 1%. %>'^ -5- theConstifcrttonoftndia.Con^i^ntiyfielmDughNo^w^e^ andis hereby set-as$de. (11) The wrlt p^tition Is allwwedi. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ij': 1 ; i % M