TSET "4|A||<'1-4 v. Jogeshwar Pr| Darogapara, sad Sahu
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Petitioner Defendant Respondent Plaintiff
20.3.2009 Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. j Mr. Sautam Bhaduri, Advocal e for the respondent. Heard. This petition is directed ag linst the order of Annexure P-'!J dated 17.11.2006 passed by learnec 2nd Civil Judge Class-II, Raigarh whereby defence of the petitione I'/defendant has been struck-off under Section 13 (l)(vi) of the C.&. |4ccommodation Control Act, 1961 fornon-payment of rent within th< period allowed by the court for the said purpose. Learned counsel |respondent submits that respondent/plaintiff has no obje (tion if the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to th< petitioner'/defendant to deposit swfpi $*i ganiwrwaTRiira—FS/95—11/2008—1,00,000. '3'er •^l'itld'1!, eiTal'M'is, Tqcii'yy widi <i>*ii<n •WI,200 gn^I'qgqT (yiI^'Kt^) an^iqil R-li'* WS 3VKXI a'liti wiiw^ffa aii^i —2-' •blfid'i)') i|l*(i'if'?1SlA<f<'<si< ^raifiCTiffl^i the arrearsof payable rent befor4 the trialcourt within a period of ohe month from today. Accordingly, the instant [tetition is disposed of with a direction tp thp petitioner to depi^sit the entire amount of arrears ofT-ent before'the court below wl thin a period of one month from today. Qn such deposit beingmade1 ^ the impugned order of Annexure P-1 dated 17.11.2006 striking-off the defence of the petitioner under Section 13 (l)(vi) of the C.G. lAccommpdation Control Act, 1961 shall stand quashed and the pe^itioner shall be permitted to participate in the proceedings. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge are^h SJi\i gil"ii<!Ki tiai-iw'iM—FS/95—11/2008—i,oo, ooo.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India; Control Act, 1961; C.G. lAccommpdation Control Act, 1961 — s. 13(l)(vi).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Chhattisgarh High Court, on 17 Nov 2006.
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.