Judgment · High Court

S.B. Hon'bl®Shri Justice NJ K, Agarwal 27-07-2009 Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, Counsei for the petitioner. Shri Anand Shukla, cour| sel for respondents NO.I& 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, 1+ie matter is heard f jnally.

The instant petition i^ directed against the order dated 19-09-2008 (Annexur^ P-1) passed by First Civil Judge, Class-I, Rajnand9aon in Civil Suit No.l-A/2008 whereby ond whereunder the trial Court has rejected the petitioner's appiication und| l^r Section 13(2) of Chhati'isgarh Accommodation IControl Act, 1961 (for short the Acf). |

Brief facts of the cas4 are that a suit for eviction and arrears of rent has be4 [n filed by the respondents herein against the petitioner| in which they have pieaded that the rate of rent was |Rs.l300/- per month. The petitioner herein fi!ed his wri[ |t-ten statement (Annexure P- 3) and in para 5 although i1^ was admitted that he was paying rent even before fili^ig of suit ©Rs.1300/- per T^ XI-HC—78 '3^ •<ii<iici<4, wnly'Ko, fsKniyy . wPO'^') Ho. 5'fcfco WRMI tbHKsb 200? Stl^'ff 'cl^^ (1clfj«<<(I) 3D^[ W ft-fl'* TT^ff Sff^T sh^i<?s ?^nw ^ifro 3ii^i -^- <ibl^i^41-1 ^FTH^f "^ 1^1 TTai^R ^?aiRn sn^i month but the same wa coiiected by respondents illegally and, tl^erefore, provisional required to be fixed.

Per contra, Shri Anan<i Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents drawn the at^-ention of this Courttowards the rent agreement (Annexur^ R-l) filed with his reply and submitted that even as per a^ reement at the tiine of fiiino of suit, rate of rent was R| s.1300/- per mon-rii and the petitioher was paying the sam s before he fell in crrears of rent, and therefore, there s no dispute looking to the cdmission of the petitioner in para 5 of the written statement and in view of Ai anexure R-l, agreement, the learned Tria! Court has rightl^ ' passed the order. Section 13(2) of the ^hhattis9arh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 reads as unfer'. 13(2) If any suit or pi^oceeding referred to in sub-section (1), there )s any dispute as to the amount of rent payah^le by the tenant, Courtshall, on a plea r^iade either by landlord or tenont in •Hiat behal-fl which shali be taken at the ear!iest opportuni^-y during such suit or- -i- •?=-J ^--Ji^l-i^, ^Tiiy-'!'s, !si^!-H4< •WE?Tr^;TJ^"-"'---"-----"-"-"-C^200. ^,pC^'2-:>-)^/°'^-&4o/ w^vi^t. (' s?) 311^)^1 R-li* WIT3n^lW!tiS WiIW ^ftt 3(1^1 3 qiiqTaqt^ IITH^J if fSt^ 7^R?F •^.afw sn^i proceeding, fix a rea^onabl relation to the accomh'iodation or paid in accordanc^ sub-section (1) and reasons to be recorfcled any plea on this ac^ount stage. " le provisional rent, in i, to be deposited with the/provisions of |io Court shall, save for in writing, entertain at cny subsequent

A bare perusal of S^ction 13(2) of the Act would reveal that for invoking prc^vision, there must some prima- facie dispute regarding rate of rent but looking to the fact situation of this case, ther^ was no dispute even prior to filing of the suit. The le4rned Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application. The petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or pe^versity in the order impugned teading to mcinifest injustice so as to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. .Therefore, the petition is dismissed.

However, three months' time is granted to the petitioner to deposit the enfire arrears of rent before the XI-HC—7S 3^"4i<<ici<i, »fl1'M'i<c, fqciiyy . upc^t-^)^o-~^~^4^ »flW11 tblich TF^ZOOg SI^T •q^qr (ipfg^q) 311^1 ^iT R-il'* HSTT 3n^?T $h*iieh irenw ^ifta sn^i 4- *iifd41-< wwif ^l' fs^t <r»i»(i< ^rsjfwan^i Trial Court. tiil then Trial ^ourt shall not pass any order under Order 13(6) of the C.< ?. Accommodation Control Act.

It is also observed tf int the question raised by the petitioner reg<irding recovei] y of the rent ©Rs.1300/- per month forcibly, shall be dec| ded by the learned Trial Court on its own merits after fr<| iming the issue in this regard without be.mg influenced by 1+iis order.