^"--.. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPU Civil Revislon No.19 of 2009 APPELLANT/: (Non-appiicant) RESPONDENT/: (Applicant) Ajit Singh S/o Mota Singh aged of about 78 years resident of Ram Nivas Talkies road Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Through Povi/er of attorney holder Samarjeet Singh S/o Ajit Singh aged about 50 years, R/o Gandhi Chowk, MG Road, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Versus Smt. Savitri Devi W/o Late Shri Baijnath Agrawal resident of Gandhi Ganj Raigarh Tehsii and dlstrict Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. {Civil revision under Section 23-E(2) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Act, 1961} Present: Mr. K.A. Ansari, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.S. Marhas & Mr. Devesh Kela, Advocates for the applicant. Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal with Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate for the non-appiicant. Ssnale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (25-10-2010) 1. ! have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned dated 21-1-2009 passed by the Rent Controliing Authority, Raigarh in Eviction Case No.1/A-90(1)/2008-09 and record ofthe Court below. 2. By this revision, the appiicant has challenged legality & propriety of the order dated 21-1-2009 passed by the Rent Controiting Authority, Raigarh (for short 'the RCA') in Eviction Case No.1/A-90(1)/2008-09, whereby the RCA has closed the opportunity of defence of the applicant herein under Section 23-C ofthe Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). 3. As per pleadings of the parties, the non-appiicant herein has filed evicflon case under Section 23-A ofthe Act against the applicant herein. Notice was not served upon the applicant as per law and without any order, notice was affixed in front of the house of the appiicant and on the Soma basis of notice, the applicant herein has apptied for coj^y-otpiaint & other documents for filing reply and giving his defence, and has also prayed for time to consult his Advocates, same was kept pending. Meanwhile, the appjicant herein has filed his defence. During the pendency of such application, the case was iisted for non-applicant's evidence. Finally on 19-1-2009 parties were heard on the interim applications and the order impugned has been passed on 21 -1 -2009. 4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behaif of the appiicant vehemently argued that while closing the right of the applicant to contest the claim, the RCA has not considered the provisions of law and pendency of application of the applicant and, therefore, the RCA has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested on it. 5. On the contrary, iearned counsel for the non-applicant opposed the revision and submitted that the authority has rightly exercised the jurisdiction vested on it. 6. Order impugned andrecord ofthe Court betow reveai that notice has not been served upon the applicant as per law and despite that, the appiicant has made appearance and applied for copy of plaint & other documents for fiting reply and defence, but the RCA has not passed order in time and the matter was kept pending for about more than 1 Vz years. Without providing copy of ptaint & documents, closing the opportunity of the appiicant for defending his case is iilegai and definltely, the authority has failed to exercise the jurisdiction. Consequently, the order impugned is not sustainable under the law. 7. The revision is allowed and the order impugned is hereby set aside. The RCA shail provide opportunity of defending his case to the appllcant and shail decide the case afresh, in accordance with iaw. No order as to costs. 8. Parties are directed to present before the Rent Controlling Authority, Raigarh on 25-11 -201 0. -—-— i Sd/- ! T.P. Sharma Judge