1 M HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition ( 2271 No. 5507 of 2011 PBTmONER (Defendant) RESPONDENTS (Plaintiffs) VBRSUS 1. 2. Kamal Shanna aysd about 49 Years S/o Mohanlal Shanna, Occupation Broker, R/o Ramadhln Marg behiud R.K. Studio, Rajnaadgaon (C.G.). Jefhi Bai aged about 75 years, W/o Lt Gan.garam Chaudak, Kantidevi ay,ed about 54 years, W/o Shaakerlal Sadani, Bofh of fheia are resident of Kanharpuri, Tah. And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLB 227 OP THB CON8TITUTION QF INDIA. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Rakesh Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Respondents not noticed. ORDER 2. 3. 4. (Passedon 19/09/2011) By fhis petition under Ardcle 227 of the Coustitution of India petitioner has challengcd fhe IcgaUly aad propriety of fhe order dated 15/7/2011 passed by lat Civil Judge Class-2, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) iu civil suit No. 09A/2011 whereby defense ofpetitioner has been struck off uiider Section 13(6) of thc Chhatdsgarh Accominodation Control Act, 1961. Shri Rakesh Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner is heaid. Learaed coiinsel for fhe peUtioner subniits fhat petitioner who was tenant of Rs. 125/- in fhe suit preinises of origiaal landlord Gaagaraia Chandak after death of Gangaram Ghaadak he has purchased siut properly froiu son of Gangaram Chaadak namely Shaakarlal and he is owner of fhe property. He has dcnied fhe relation landlord aad tenaat even he has not paid admitted rent Adinittedly, no speci&c decree for speci&c perfonnaace has been gianted in favour of fhe petitioner or petitioner has not purchascd s— z 5. the properly by registered sale deed, In fhese circuinstances petitioner was iinder obl^ation to pay rent claimed or even agreed rent but instead of payiug such rent petitioner has deliberatety not paid nionthly rent. Respondent No. 1 & 2 are stiU co-laadlord and entitled for eviction. Consequenffy, coiisidering fhe nature of defense of petitioner aad non-payraent of rent payable under Section 13(1) of fhe Chhattisgarh Accoinniodation Control Act, 1961 by striking off defense of the petitioner, Court has not conunitted aay Ulegalily requirfng any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Coasequenfty, petition is liable to be disuussed aad is hereby disnussed. No oider as to costs. I.A. No. 01 is also disniissed, Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge