\...:.a:s.' ;-sfs-:'' --32-... •^ = ••^f.' ^fe' 8 cn 1 11 E11?^^%n^nt ":^ ^ !« IN [^ 1 &e' 1-gg {S'''U:"'8 |U ;.& s <^ ^.m BS p ? f- d n i-t. &i fi &' B •t;-:.g'f .,.B^:; P.'j "rt'1-1*.'.! » <" K ^.^nl K "< '»" •S '8 (l) o c> i§ ^ o tst i ,CI &it p 1 § » » 0 s^II o •• » Sg 0 j1 f6 ^ ff. ® & r §' C3- "-0 ^3 §ffl 33 M.F 1^€l^ -S i^* »^ICTN 1/J! !€K n^l^ ^ 1"^1 o XI-HC-78 \iW|"qiq[0q,U>Tn1wiS,(6|QI<1*^< TFTBT^n^ ^.r?.^.i.H.^^^200 sn^TWTR'li* aansn^TWWB 3II^?T ll^p{4c|fj6|tri) s^atw^ifteiSII^T 7-10-2005 l-1eard Shri Awadh Tripatl] The petitioner has prefer( of the Constitution of India correctness of the order dated Authority, Raipur whereby ttie| rejected the application filed b'i additional issues, Brief facts leading to herein filed a suit for arrears of| herein in which the petitfoner. he| and based on that issue has al| wanted to move an application] property beirtg ancestral the o| property have not been made joint Hindu Pamily Property property in question. Having heard learned co< impugned order. In my opinio^i ijlegality or infirmity in passingl respondent is based on the La|n even if some of the membere ofl not the necessary pariy. As far as the defence ra|s the written statement that the p| house, in this connection, ti, counsel for the petitioner. |ed this writ petition underArticle226/227 Iquestioning the legality, propriety and [7-7-2005 passed.by theRent Controtling leamed Rent Controlling Authority has the petitioner herein for framing of the separ^te <ni<<F»<I1iiiinT^ffe1^! •(Rl+^l't ^aif^Wan^i filirjg of this writ petition are that respondent |rent and ejectment against the petitioner [•ein has alreadyfiled his writtenstatement teady been settled. The petitioner herein for framing of additional issues that the (her members of the joint Hindu. Family p^rty and respondent is not a 'Karta' of the arjd th.afthe respondent wants to sell the insel for the petitioner, 1 have perused the i, the trial Court has not committed any |the impugned order, as the suit filed by .a|ridlord and tenant relationship, therefore, |the joint Hindu Family arethere, they are ra|sed by the defendanffpetitioner herein in laintiff/respondent herein wantsto sell the issue is not required and the petitioner )IT®FrTS1r- XI-HC-78 \jw|-q|<l|rtq;t»-^|<U<|<»,Rlrtl'dyx *ii*i«ia»iT^ •3iii?rwR-ii<b ?raT3II^?Iri)*li<W n Bari/e SII^ST craq?{<jcif'j6i<d) g^KR^rfldSII^T -IX- herein will be at liberty to adc piaintiffs witnesses in issue No Therefore, thi&.petition dismissed and it is accordingly Consequently, M.(W.)P stand disposed of. <pi<ifCT41i *iiinl"fffe>3 •{RltSK <li3lRl*13II^?T ^ !uce his evidenee and cross-examine the 13.,: •• : :' • ; p wjthout any merit, same is liabte to be dismissed. ; No.3969/2005 and I.A. No.8698/2005 Sd/- LC.Bhadoo Judge f