Chhattisgarh High Court
WP/3629/2004 of KUMESH KUMAR JAIN Vs MANOHAR LAL and ORS. on 24 December 2004
• ^?CC--' A ?_ BI£ASPffi (XSBWS13GSSE) i:IIIJN! t; WBIT FSsxsres yoS.&zse^ sow M Eiianar Jain, Props K/s» Wooctwerld < Fanai^'Bre SBfeg ) near O.G.M. eiiort:, Aflnied_eol©iy,Nal^ar c^owK, Balptir," ; Tahs &Dt;Raipur(G.G). " ~ ' Vs. 1. Manoaarlal, aged
;:
^'•^.
lo(
'c'1•-S • ^?CC--'
II.'EHB.BI®G0UBI
A?_ BI£ASPffi (XSBWS13GSSE)
WBIT FSsxsres sow yoS.&zse^
M Eiianar Jain, Props K/s» Wooctwerld< Fanai^'Bre SBfeg ) near O.G.M. eiiort:,Aflnied_eol©iy,Nal^ar c^owK," Balptir,"~';Tahs &Dt;Raipur(G.G).
Vs.
1. Manoaarlal, aged abou-fc^O years,son of late Hanakram AKuja.
2. Prakasalal Ahaja, aged abQUt 48 years,;son of lat^ Nanaferaa Aaaaa.11•^f^y^'"^^s^s:agWg'''K^•T^::- .:;;:.;,*;-Ji:lrti:-SW»»***K!; '^Sw^-'SS^'X^^S^:^L^.^S^:..i,'"-/-^;i\^!:• ^—^f:.• ";'::CQ^»fc,Bs^W^,,iEaa.& •Q'e^'^en&f^:^'tasa^-Q'S!-^^^ '.";'BotM• ..:/.'^/^' resl.aeKbs;.,~.:..•"•:"- .:r •/.:' of- iiouse.'.."jBt;'•;••' Ne.l<-?1, :SSJ.gBEF^:::i{e.':•• \'\ ••••; ^ ^•••\; raear ^••'.• &);^^^si^-s^'"s^y»»'TO?>!
;i!:»;
pl<'
XI-HO-22
3II^?I?iIRi-litl alBSiilaiiii* W^l
•sRgT^naiwPiE^ate?, [s"a»'s<
sf^f 'qa^
....^.s.^
2004-
Page 1 of 2
*ii*ini shNicn2004-tare^st''fest'^^R-AWfall'l Hlial ^3?i^?r ^*di^ ^ri^cr^;N;TO31I^t'24.12.20041;.',•. -;Onamentionl ingmade,the^dse istaken up for hearing.Smt. Anju AHu^ja^counsel forI'hepetitjoner.Bythis writ petitionunderArfricle227 of the Constitution of India,the petitioner hcisquestionedthefe^dlity, propriety and corpectness of theorder dated 4th August, 2004(Anne(<ure^>(Anne(<ure^-5),passed bythe 4ti'Additiondt&istrict 3ud9e, Rdipur;iwherebytl'ie|leai-ried tridl CburtafterdeTerminingthearrenrsofreritundisir5e<^i-ion13(6)offhe [ Chhotti^arhAccommoddtion Control Act, dlrecTe|dthe petitloner herein to deposlt therent from the month of February,|2004,[a»][ the][ rate][ of][ Rs.6/300/-]permonth in theCourt.Brief facts leading to fitin9ctf this wTit petition as bome out fromtherecord, are that ttie^petitionepj[herein took the disputed premises onrent fromone Late Nanakram Ahuja,and'during the tenancy Late NanakramAhuja explred leavlng behlnd the i^pe|spon(lenTs hepein and one Suntl Atiuja,hissons.As the petitioner failedt*pay the rent,the pespondieiri^ gave anotice To hlm to/pay the rent offhe djsputed premises.(-towever, thepetrtioner failed •h> pay the pent, asjxresult ofwhichthe reqiondentSifileda suit under the Chhatti^arhAccdriimodation Controt Act for evictlon afldarrearsofrent.Thelier'leJnfttedaWritterifFhatietnientwiththe petitioneraverments that he has paid renf tc|Sunil Ahujq, oneoft'he-sons of.t.ate;Nanakram ^huja and the brothef<^f the ptamtiffs, larter' on he has atsopurchasedthe disputedpremisesfr4(m[Sunil][ Ahuja][ and][ he][ is][ not][ the][ fenan't']
.A\ .^"
\.s^
.l.;!
XI-HIS-22
^-^lilft^WS^MW^
''•'•\.i:';
I'MBI
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…