Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
AION^PPUCANT Plaintiff BhaskswRal Veraus NytceshBajwani (Revision under Section ll^of the C^xtecrfCivU ProeedLB-e. 19(^ (Sinate BeiietK Hon'Ne Mr. N.K. Aawv^rf* ^l Present s Shri HKMishra, Advocate for the sqaptteant. •^ O^U..OR©EI& (Passedon 07.02.^12)
Heard on admission. Legalfty and propriety of order dato^ 1^08.2@t1, pssse^tsy llnd CivfrJudge^ Class I, Raipur, 'm Clvit Suit No. 8-A/(^ Is under assaU in the instent revision.
Facts in brief are that : respondent/plaintW insttttited a suit for evicttonagainsttheappliGanVdefendantuRclertheprovisiBnsof Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). By fifing wrtttenstartementtheappllcant/defenct^'itctenied the relationship of landtord and tenant. The respon^ent/plaintlff preferred an applteation under Section 13 (3) of the AcA. The same was allowed by the trial court with a dtrectton thet the amount whteh may be deposlted by the a(^>liGarrt shalt not be disbursedtotherespondent^3ilaintiff: HenGefhi8revtero».
Shri HK IVIishra, leamed counsel appearing for the appliGant submits that there is no relattonship of landtorct and ter»nt between the applicant and responderrt, and therefore, applicant is not rec|Utred t<»deposit any amount toward^rerat and the order impugnect suffers from jurisctlctioRal iUegality.
I have heard the counsel appearing fortheapplicant and perused the order Impugned.
Once a suit for ejegtment is flled the court aequtres jurisdiction '^ to deal with any claim or qu^ion arising out of the Act or of any of its provisions, no matter whethep the reI^ionBhlp of landtord and tenant is admittect or denied t»y tlte ctefendant. The object of the provision is Glearly to prevent atenant from stopping payment of rent the moment a suit for rejectment is fited. It is also to relieve the landlord from the necessify of ritog a separate sutt for rent for the period covered by the pendency of the suit. These objects woulct be defeated atftogether if the complianGe of the provisions of this section were <leferred untit after an adjudication on the questton whether th@ delendant is a tenant. For the purpose of making compllance under this section the test is whether the person is being sued as a tenant. The test is not only a suit behween a landlord and a 'm tenant in which that retationship was admjtted but also a sutt which the relationship oflandtord and tenant wasctented. Th® trialcourthasalsosafeguapGtedttifeinteFe^oftheapptiGantby directing that the amount which may be depestted by ie appltoant shatt not be disbursed to the respondent/ptaintre ^
In view of above, 1 do n<^ find any juriscttetlonal UlegaUty in the order impugned warranting interferenGe of this court io exerolse of ftsrevisional|ufisdiction.
For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the revision fatts and is accorcNngly dismissed in limine. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge ,Sahu
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.