JUDGEMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

Heard.

1. Instant petition is against the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal constituted under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2011'). The order is dated 21/12/2021 wherein ejectment order dated 23/03/2021 passed by the Rent Control Authority was affirmed.

2. Instant petition is by the tenant. The brief facts of this case are that the respondent filed an application for ejectment of the petitioner in respect of the shop bearing No.40/38 situated at Babu Jagjivan Ram Ward-40, fruit market, Raipur. According to the pleaded facts, the father-in-law of the petitioner Satyanarayan Choudhary obtained the said shop 30 years back to run a business of fruits. After his death the petitioner continued to be a tenant. The rent of the shop lastly was Rs.3,360/-. It was pleaded that for last six months the petitioner has not paid the rent regularly, therefore as per section 12(2) read with 11(h) of schedule-2 of the Act of 2011 a notice was issued to the petitioner by the respondent on 29/11/2018 whereby his tenancy was terminated from the midnight of 29/05/2019 i.e. after expiry of six months. The petition before the Rent Control Authority was strongly contested and it was stated that the petitioner is not in the arrears of rent and the legal rent though was tendered was not accepted by the respondent/landlord. It was further pleaded that the notice dated 29/11/2018 was not in conformity to the statutory requirement, as such since the notice itself on the very inception was bad in law, the ejectment cannot be ordered on that basis by the Rent Control Authority. Both the Rent Control Authority and the Tribunal did not accept the contention of the petitioner/tenant, hence this petition before this court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that section 12(2) read with 11 (h) of schedule-2 of the Act of 2011 requires notice to the tenant in writing, without any obligation to assign any reason, the said notice therefore should have been in conformity to the section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. He would submit that the notice dated 29/11/2018 giving a six months time which would expire on 29/05/2019 cannot be said to be a legally constituted notice as the tenancy was terminated in the midway. Referring to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in (1977) 2 SCC 646 in between Bhagabandas Agarwalla Vs. Bhagwandas Kanu and others the counsel would submit that their Lordships in the said case have held that notice to quit must expire with the end of the month of the tenancy or in other words it must terminate the tenancy with effect from expiration of month of the tenancy. He would submit that in the teeth of such law laid down by the Supreme Court the notice itself would be bad in law. Accordingly, both the order of the Rent Control Authority and the Tribunal therefore requires to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the principle laid down in the case cited by the petitioner would rather lean in favour of the respondent inasmuch as the operation of 106 of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be independent and it is circumvented by the local law which is Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 which only prescribe that six months notice is required which has been fulfilled in the instant case. Therefore the order passed by both the Rent Control Authority and the Tribunal is well merited which do not call for any interference.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. After hearing the parties, the limited question which falls for consideration as to whether the notice dated 29/11/2018 issued to the petitioner under section 12(2) read with 11(h) of schedule-2 of the Act of 2011 would be legal or not. For the sake of brevity, Section 12(2) and 11(h) of the Schedule-2 of the Act, 2011 are reproduced hereunder:-

“12. Rights and Obligations of Landlords and Tenants. - XXX

(2) Every landlord shall have r