Sharad Kumar Gupta, J.

In this writ petition, the challenge levied is to the order dated 06.11.2017 passed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur; for short Tribunal-, in Appeal No. 40A/2017 vide Annexure P/1 whereby and whereunder he confirmed the order dated 22.06.2017 passed by the Rent Controller, Bemetara in Case No. 01/A-90(7)/2016-2017 vide Annexure P/2, whereby and whereunder he rejected the eviction application filed by the Petitioner-Benlal Tamrkar.

2. This is admitted by respondent Nos. 2 & 3 that they are running the business in the disputed shops. Raj Kumar is the son of Guru Dayal Singh Saluja.

3. In brief, the petitioner's case is that he had purchased the disputed shops from Raj Kumar Saluja by registered sale deed dated 22.04.2004. The respondents No. 2 and 3 are tenants. The rent of each shop is Rs. 1000/- per month. The respondents are defaulters in payment of rent. The disputed shops are required for his own occupation and occupation of his adult sons.

4. In brief, the case of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is that father of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 are real brothers. The father of the petitioner had given the disputed shop to respondent No. 2 as a gift. The father of the petitioner had also sold another disputed shop to respondent No. 3. They were never tenants in the disputed shops. The application of the petitioner is not maintainable under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011; in brief' the Act, 2011.

5. The Rent Controller, Bemetara and the Tribunal, Raipur passed the orders as aforesaid. Being aggrieved with the order Annexure P/1 the petitioner preferred this writ petition.

6. Ms. Sharmila Singh, counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has purchased the disputed shops, thus he is entitled to receive the rent because respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the tenants of the petitioner. Thus, the Rent Controller, Bemetara as well as the Tribunal, Raipur had committed gross illegality. The aforesaid orders may be set aside.

7. In a landlord-tenant case, title of the disputed accommodation is wholly irrelevant. In eviction application or suit based on the landlord-tenant relationship, it is essential for the applicant/s to prove the landlord-tenant relationship, he is the landlord and the opponent is tenant. Not proving these facts leads to dismissal of the eviction application or suit.

8. The question for consideration before us is that whether the Rent Controller, Bemetara and the Tribunal, Raipur have committed illegality or perversity while passing the orders Annexure P/2 and Annexure P/1 respectively.

9. As per the alleged photocopy of the registered sale deed Annexure P/3, Raj Kumar had sold the disputed shops to the petitioner on 22.04.2004. Respondent's witness Nirmolak Singh says in para-3 during his cross-examination that this is true that Raj Kumar has sold the disputed shops to petitioner by registered sale deed. The respondent's witness Guru Baksh Singh says in para 4 during his cross-examination that he got notice in 2004 that the disputed shops have been sold. Thus, this Court finds that the Rent Controller, Bemetara as well as the Tribunal, Raipur have not committed any illegality in giving the finding that the petitioner had purchased the disputed shops.

10. In the eviction application Annexure P/4, the registered notice Annexure P/7, examination-in-chief of the petitioner, affidavits of his witnesses Sita Ram Sinha and Ram Sahay Verma this has not been clearly and strongly mentioned that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were allegedly the tenants of Raj Kumar Saluja from such date and at such rate. For not doing so there is no explanation from the petitioner.

11. The Petitioner has not suggested to respondent's witnesses Nirmolak Singh, Guru Baksh Singh, Tejwant Singh and Manmohan Singh during their cross-examination that respondents No. 2 and 3 were allegedly the tenants in the disputed shops of landlord Raj Kumar Saluja from such date and at such rate

12. The petitioner witn