3g?” 3E?é{§%% 1N THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATrIsGARH AT BILASPURTCLT) , H ug WRIT PETITION (227) No.71??? OF 2010 PETITIONER ‘ x Ashok Singh Thakur,. aged Defendant about 55 years, S/o Shir Indraman Singh, Resident of Nagar Nlgam Colony, Vyapar Bihar Road, Maharana Pratap Chowk, Near the House of (Farid Kuraishi Engineer) Bilaspur, Tahsii and District Biiaspur (C.G.) VERSUS ,7 Smt. Jagya Bai Patel, aged about 43 years, Widow of Late Shri Annu Prasad% Noga’ [D/Wy L Vya/pw Q/ym/Zwud 8)&/% W ' TM a mW~ g/MMW7TEC~%/ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION ' OF‘INDIA ESPONDENT Plaiiff T i R nt HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227) No. 7233/2010 .g Shri MD. Shanna, counsel for the petitioner. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (13.12.2010) In suit preferred by respondent/‘landlord on failure of the petitioner/tenant to deposit the arrears of rent and monthly rent in terms of section 13 (1) of the Chhattisgarh AccOmmodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinaner referred to as ‘the Act’), the trial court, while considering the tenants application under section 13 (6) of the Act has directed the petitioner either to deposit the rent in terms of section 13 (l) of the/Actowithin 'a period of one month failing which the matter regarding striking out his defence would be considered. (2) Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on judgment referred by M.P. High Court in the matter of Nathulal Gupta Vs. Phattandas Termal and another, ’1974 M.P.L.J. 396, has argued ’1’” V ””1 \ that since the petitioner has raised a dispute about thetitle, of the \\\ landlord, order for striking out defence without deciding the title of \ V \the landlord, is illegal. He would submit that in the facts and \ , a e x 1 \ l PETITIONER Ashok Singh Thakur Versus RESPONDENT : -.Smt. Jagya Bai Patel Appearance: x\\ (2' circumstances of the case powers under section 13 (6) of the Act should not have been exercised. (3) Sub-section 3 and sub-section 4 of section 12 of the Act reads as under: “(3) NO orderfbr the eviction ofa tenant shall be made an the ground specified in clause (a) ofsub-section (I), #the temmt l} r makes payment or deposit as required by section 13: Provided that no tenmt shall be emitted to the benejit under this sub-section, ij,‘ having obtainedsuch benefit once in respect ofany accommodation, he again; makes a default in the payment of rent of that accommodation for three consecutive months. (4) Where a landlord has acquired any acconunodation by wander, no suitfor the eviction oftencmt shall be maintainable under sub-section (1) on the ground sped/ted in clause (e) or clause (f) thereof,‘ unless a period ofone year has elapsedji‘om the date ofthe acquisition " (4) The provisions contained in sub-section 3 would apply where there is any dispute as to the person or persons to whom the rent is payable and ader séhgdis'pu‘te occurs, the court may direct the tenant to deposit with the court the amount payable by him under sub- section 1 and the rent so deposited could be withdrawn by the person concerned after the dispute is decided by the court. (5) Under sub-section 4 the court has been conferred with the x/wkpower for striking out defence, if it is found that the dispute raised by the tenant referred to in sub-section 3 is false and fi‘ivolous. \)\‘)/ (6) In the present case, on perusal of the plaint and the wn'tten statement it would appear’that the petitioner has not raised any dispute as to the person or persons to whom the rent is payable, rather, the petitioner claims right to remain in occupation of the premises as a prospective purchaser by virtue of the agreement of sale executed between the parties on 5/01/1 994 (Annexure P-4). Thus in the facts of the case neither sub-section 3 nor subsection 4 of the Act is applicable and similarly the judgment relied by learned counsel for the petitioner is also distinguishable on facts. (7) Learned counsel would also submit that sub-section 3 and sub- section 4 would apply also where there is dispute about title of the landlord and the court is required to prima facie decide such dispute raised by the tenant. On perusal of the impugned order, it would appear that the trial court, on the basis of revenue entries filed by the plaintiff/landlord has recorded a categorical prima faeie finding that the plaintih‘ is the owner ofsubject premises, thus, this argument of learned counsel has also no substance. (8) Evenotherwise, if the petitioner is setting up a title in himself, ’ the order asking him to deposit rent or to face an order striking out his defence would not prejudice him because the defence available to him in common law would always be available. (9) The instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. "/" Sdl- 7’ Wil- Prasham Kumar Mishra Vi Judge