High Court Of ChhattisgarhWP227/552/2017allowed

Dr. Nitin Juneja v. Saurabh Agrawal

2017-08-21Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No.

of 201 Dr. Nitin Juneja, S/o Shri P.L. Juneja, aged about 39 years, Working as Managing Director/Authorized Power of Attonrney Holder Prime Multi Speciality Health Care and Research Pvt. Ltd., R/o Prime Medical Centre Mangla Chowk, Mungeli Road near Bank of Baroda, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) .... Non-applicant ---- Petitioner

Versus

Saurabh Agrawal, S/o Shri S.K. Agrwal, Through Power of Attorney - Mukesh Agrawal, aged about 39 years, S/o Shri S.K. Agrawal, R/o Vinoba Nagar Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.) ....Applicant ---- Respondent For Petitioner:

Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 2 1 /0 8 /201 (1) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "CPC") before the Rent Controlling Authority for rejection of the application filed by the respondent - landlord. That application has been rejected without assigning any sufficient reason and non-speaking order has been passed by the trial Court, which is liable to be set aside.

(2) Notice was issued to the respondent but none has been appeared on behalf of the respondent.

(3) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

perused the order impugned with utmost circumspection. (4) The petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (henceforth 'CPC') has been rejected by the Rent Controlling Authority, Bilaspur on the ground that the RCA has satisfied with the reply filed by the landlord therein. In the considered opinion of this Court, this is not the correct procedure for determining the lis; the Rent Controlling Authority, while rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, ought to have assigined valid and sufficient reasons and thereafter could have been rejected the same, which the trial Court has not done and, therefore, the impugned order dated 5.7.2017 deserves to be set aside.

(5) Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 5.7.2017 is set aside. The application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC is restored to the file of Rent Controlling Authority, Bilaspur for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge D/-