The tenant's estoppel from denying the landlord's title under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the permissibility of seeking eviction despite non-compliance with tenancy agreement and Act's provisions.

JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

1. Heard.

2. The instant petition is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur dated 19.1.2017 passed in Appeal No.33-A/2016, whereby, the order of eviction has been passed against the petitioner from the subject suit premises, which is a shop situated at Sadar Bazar, Bilaspur. The petition is filed by the tenant.

3. The background of the facts is that a shop was taken on rent 42 years back from one Krishna Bihari Mishra and thereafter, the shop was being run under the name and style of 'M/s. Maa Sheetla Jewellers'. After the death of Krishna Bihari Mishra, respondent Ravikant Mishra and others stepped into his shoes and were receiving rent. Eventually, a notice dated 15.12.2014 was served to the tenant under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (in short “the Act, 2011”) and despite service of notice, since the tenant failed to vacate the premises within a period of 6 months, an application was filed before the Rent Controlling Authority for ejectment. Before the Rent Controlling Authority, the petitioner herein came with a reply that he has not defaulted any payment of rent and the intention of the landlord is to get the premises vacated so as to further lease out the premises on higher rent. The Rent Controlling Authority dismissed the application filed by the landlord, which was primarily under clause 11 (h) appended with Schedule 2 of the Act, 2011. The Schedule 2 of the Act, which lays down the Landlord's Rights available under the Act, is framed under Section 12(2) of the Act, 2011. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondents filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal and the same was allowed and the ejectment order was passed. Hence, this petition.

4. (a) Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Malay Shrivastava would submit that the facts of the instant case would reveal that the property in question was Nazul land, which was given on grant by the State Government long back. He would submit that the documents filed along with the petition, which are the proceedings of the revenue case, would show that the area was granted to the respondents through their predecessor and they have executed the sale-deed in part and parcel of the land over and above of their holdee. He further submits that under these circumstances, when this fact came to the fore, an application was filed before the Revenue Authority to demarcate the land. The Revenue Authority held that the issue of title cannot be decided by the Revenue Court and as such, directed the petitioners therein to file a civil suit. Thereafter, a Civil Suit was filed wherein this issue is completely within its seisin.

4(b) He would further submit that an application was also filed before the Revenue Authority to demarcate the land but despite issuance of notice, the respondents have not made any participation. He further submits that under the Act, 2011, Section 4 mandates the agreement to be in existence and in absence thereof, the Act, 2011 cannot be pressed into motion. He submits that since the requirement under Section 4 of the Act, 2011 was not complied with, the proceedings before the Rent Controlling Authority was a nullity. He places reliance on the judgments rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matters of Shamshad Ahmad Vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj (deceased) through L.Rs., (2008) 9 SCC 1 and Hasmat Rai and another Vs. Raghunath Prasad, (1981) 3 SCC 103, to advance the arguments that when it came to knowledge that frequent sale-deed was executed and the subject suit property has undergone a drastic change, the Court was required to take note of it and in absence thereof, it will have a disastrous effect.

4(c) He further submits that vide order dated 18.11.2019, the application filed by the petitioner for spot inspection and measurement of the property has been rejected by the Nazul Officer, Bilaspur, which was subject of challenge before this Court. This Court vide order dated 7.1.2020 pa