^.-•u-^-^-^-..^'u-u^^^^-u-^. ^ ^l^^^H c CIC:NE:IA INIil.^ i^"s^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WMT PETITION NO^^SOF 2005 ^\ PETITIONER: DEFENDANT: y Kishore Chandra Bhoi, aged about 64 years, son of Shri S.S.Bhoi, resident of Bajarang Chowk, Mathpara, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur. Versus RESPONDENTS:. PLAINTIFF 9^: ^" \(7\^^-f ^^^ ^y^ ^"^TP Smt. Leela Sahu, aged about 44 years, w/o Shri Dutiaram Sahu, resident of Bajarang Chowk, Mathpara, Mahamaya Mandir Ward, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur. RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF mDIA XI-HC-22 CT^TSFT fN^W^ST ^R[<=r> ^rf?cT J^^IHId<4, ^TTl<-ljl(?, (€tdl<iy WHCfll^Hlcft 3^1^1 l-i^ctl ^.U^^.^.A0 ^^g:' l°J '200 3TT^T5^cTRK 5 Shri K& Patei/counset fo: ^NT^^.w^^te^^^ ^3l1^T!73T}??T the petitioner. The petitioner has preferjred this writ petitlon under Articie 227 uestioning the legaiity/ propriety and of' ;the Constitutjon ' of India correctness' of the order dated l8all"2004 by the 6 Cjvii Judge/ Ciass'-I, Rdpur whereby the ie^ned Civi! Judge after deternilning the rent of the disputed prernises. u Accomrnoddtion Contro! Act, dire' re.nt in the Court © RsAOOA per pjdntjff not be entitied to ^ suit and diso questionlng the lea ider Section 13 (2) of the Chhattisgarh :ted the petjtioner herein to deposit the month* It was further directed that the rent deposited by the petltior|er herein/defendant In the suit, the ^thdraw the same tjii the disposal of the ^iiity, propriety and correctness- of the order dated 26-2-2005 passed ^y the leamed Civi'i Judge whereby it has ordered' that if the petitil pur^uance of the Court's order,| ijoner has not deposited the ainount in. then he wi!t not be entitied for the protection under Section 12 of t|ie Chhottisgarh Accommodation Controi Act. I have heard learned coum^l for the petitioner. Learned counsei for the hcrein took the disputed preml4 Kumar Suha and thereafter Shri. agreement tcr seli.the to the [petitioner argued. that the • petitioner ies on rent from one Shri Pradhumna Pradhurnna Kumar Guha entered into an jpetittoner herein but the deed was XI-HC-22 3TI^T^T fspt^CT^T ^ri^^rfi^f j^r ^Kdd^l, ^Tfi<-i4i<?, (^<ni^y< 3TI^TqTf^ HTH<y81 ^)^iach W^ 200 f^^§:< 3:n^fT?^TRK^r _ ^•A' chl^Td41^ ^l^dT^te^tiRl^K ^•^ri^r^n^T not executed. However, responc|ent herein/pldntiff in.the suit in coiluslon with said Shri Pradhurnna Kumat^ 6uha and Pavitra Kumar Suha purchased the disputed property and goi executed the sa!e deed on 29-'10~99' through whlch the respondent petitioner herein filed a suit ag herein has not acquired the titie. Th.e &inst Pavitra Kumar Suha and respondent' herein for declaration and p^rmanent injuncti-on, therefore, in the clrcumstances, the petitioner hei \ . respondent is not entitled to rec ^ein is not atenant of re-spondent, GS such' ^ive the rent, therefore, impugned orders passed bythe CiviS Judge are jile^al^ Having heard leGrned courj admission, I have perused t documents. It Is admltted'posit through registered saie' deed isei for the petitioner on the question of ie impugned orders as aiso reievant |on that respondent hereio had purchased he disputed premises on 29-1^99 from one Shri Payltra Kumar &uha for consideration of Rs.4 lakhs and' thereaffer she ciaimed rent froi^ the petitloner herein. .On fdling to pay the rent by the petitioner resp^ndent herein fiied G suit for eviction and arrears of rent and in that suit v|i iearned tria! Court under Sectiod herein has fdied to deposit the 2-2005 has been passed by the de impugned order dated 18-11-2004 the 13 (2) of.the Act directed the petitioner herein to deposit the rent @ ^sAOOA per month which the petitioner same. Consequently, the order dated 26- learned Civi! Judge that if the petitioner hereln fails to deposit the rent ^ directed by the Court,;then he wili-not XI-HC-22 ,j^T ^l^lld^l, ^TTl<-ijl<?, ^ldl<iy< W^T^f^ ^IW^IT^W^ ^ 200 f^^§;< W^TSpr f^ri^wi^r ^TfW •^RT^ ^* Pavi'tra be-entitied for the protectlon| Accommodatlon Controi Act. Thel •suit again^t the petitioner hereljn the disputed frorn herein took the premises in qyesl the relationshlp of landiord and the respondent has flied the property on the basis of purchas| 99, therefore, the tria! Court ha^ deposlt the rent @ Rs.400/- thes'efore, the triai Couri- has wi!) not be entitled for the Chhatri^garh Accommodotion parl-y cidmina himseif to be thd then if Court- is prjma facie sati| case, the Court is required to defendant does not deposit rent' he is not tenant o'f piaintiff, jn protection under Section 12 ofl obilgatjon to prove the reiation faiis to establish the same, then ^hi^?d41^ ^i^<^T^'ter^t<Ri^i< ^•3:rf^T3TT^rT under Sectlon 12 of the Chhattjsaarh respondent herein has filed the eviction on the.ground thot she has purchased Kumar 6uha from whom the petitioner ^ion on rent and the petitioner has denied tenant between him and respondent» As |uit claiming ownership of the disputed ^ of the sdd disputed property on 29-10- w^ rightly directed the petitloner herein to ^er manth whlch he failed to deposit, riightiy ordered that the petitioner herein protection ^under Section 12 of the _^^ C^ntroi Act* In sult for eviction fiied by iandlord and tenant to the other party, i^fied with the pieading of piaint, in that the defendant to deposit rent, and if as directed by the Court and ct'aims that [that case defendant is not .entitied for the Act However, ptdntiff is under |of landiord and tenant. If the pi'dntjff his suit is bound to be dismissed or^er '•?S¥»£:y3 Xi-HC-22 J^T ^l^l^l^, ^Tfl<-ijl<'o, Is|<rtl^y ^\ 3TT^T^f^ ^m^rr^w^ ^ 200 ^^< ^TT^T^T fsFTr^3:n^T sr>^ich ^f^cl INN*' Barve <tt ^NNN^ / v ^ 3n^T5¥cTRR?rf?-cr '-^ impugned orders by.the^ ^r^frrwr^f^ te^t ^CTT ^•3:lf^T3TT^T In the circumstances, I do ^iot flnd any iilegaiity or infirinity in the learned Civil Judge, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed artd it is accordingiy dismissed. Consequentiy, M.(W.)P. No.3}604/2005 and LA. No.3803/2005 a!so stand disposed of. ' i , . . Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ^ 1 (q^^r)