INWWW TI-E WGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH Writ Pmition No. $8] of 2005 PéTITIONERs: \ /1). Sm‘r. Bhanu Ben, DEFENDANTs Wd./o Lam Gamma Bihi Bhinde, Aged abou‘r 60 year-s, {o Behind Radha Madhav Press, Raigarh, Chhaffisgnr'h. Shrikanf Bhinde, > S/o La're Govind Bai Bhinde, Aged abouf 45 year's Occupm‘xon Busmess Rfo Gama Chowk Tehsul & Disfrlcf Rulgurh (CG) REBPONDENTS: PLAINTIFFS - Versus - /1). Sm‘r. Swim Devi; W/o Lafe Devendr'a Savar'ia, Aged abouf 51 years ./2). Yashwanf Savaria, Sfo Nanelal Savar'iu, Aged abouf 52 years, Jayan-H Savaria, 5/0 Nanekd Savar‘ia, Aged abouf 50 year-s, ,x" AH R/o Gdndhl GanJ Smhon Road Ralgurh Tehsd & DIS‘H Rmgar'h Chhaf'hsgarh as under- ~ 1. PARncULARs OF THE PErITmNaks: - As mem‘ioned in fhe cause ’ri’rle. ' 2. PARTICULARS OF Tl-E RESPWDENTS: - As menfioned in fhe cause fi‘He. _/ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTIaEs _ f) 227 OF TFE CONSTITUTIGV OF INDIA. ’ The pehfmner's above named mosf respectfully beg 1'0 submrr K3 A 4-, ,A / XI—HC-22 33-20% Mr. B.D. Guru, sounsei for the peiitioners. By this: writ petition, thg petitioner seeks to question the iegaiity, propriety and correctness of the rder dated 17-01-2005 (Annexure P4) passed by the 2“ Civil Judge, Cia 5-H, Raigarh, and order dated 07-1 9-2003 ‘(Annexure P-2) passed by the 4‘“ C 'vn Judge. mass-n, Raagarh. i have heard learned coun e! for the petitieners o'n the question ef admission of this writ petition. As far as the order dated 0 10-2003 is concerned, the defence of the petitioners was etruck oi‘i on acc unt of the non-deposit of rent month by month. Learned counsei eubmits at the rent was depO$ited in the month of August, 2002. But, the perusai the ordei' reveais that the rent was not deposited after June, 2002, month by month, and that is why the defence of the petitioners herein was struck o under Seetion 13 (6) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodaticn Contra! Act, 1961 against which the petitioners herein r‘iied a renew petition, the same was a o dismissed byorderdated 13-02-2004 and ne revision was filed against his order‘ in the firet instance, alternative remedy was avaiiable to the peti ionere herein the same was ’not availed. Even otherwise, learned counsei i not able to point to any legality or infirmity in this order. Therefore, on this g o', the petition is' not maintainabie. New coming to the order da ed 17-01 ~2005, by this order. learned Civil v Judge has rejected the appiic ‘on fiied by the petitioners herein for amendment of the written statem nt. The application-was rejected by the teamed Civii Judge on the groun that since the defence of the petitioners herein has been struck off. theref re, they are not entitied to raise the pieas ¢ mentioned in the lAs by way of e endment in the written statement. in my ' )»5. -,, i r n XI-HC—22 amN“ :a wna 'opinion‘, this order‘also does roi suffer from anyriuegaiity, because the defence of the petitioners herein was struck off vide crder dated 0?-1G-2003 on account of the non-deposit oi rent. Therefqre, all the defencea availabie i0 the petitioners under the Ghhattisgarh Accommodation Controi Act; 1961‘ maiready struck off.‘ in the circumstances. the petitioners cannot be allowed to raise the defences by way of amendment in View of the above, i do not find any substance in this writ petition, the same is iiebie to be dismis ed and it is accordingly, dismissed, at the admission stage itself. Consequentiy, M.(W.)P. 9474/2005 and -l.Av.No.1216/2005 stand wJ disposed of. Sd/— I L.C.Bhadoo Judge . \r’ r .m r ”- g ”