ORDER :

1. The present petition is filed against the order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, whereby the order passed by the Rent Control Authority dated 23.12.2020 for eviction and payment of arrears of rent was affirmed.

2. The brief facts of the case are:

(i) That respondents No. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred as landlords) namely Smt. Sushila Soni and Smt. Asha Valia filed an application before the Rent Control Authority, Rajnandgaon that a super structure/shop is comprised over land bearing Sheet No. 48-A, plot No. 85/3 (part of plot No. 85/1) owned by them (landlords) has been let out to petitioner (herein after referred as tenant) at monthly rent of Rs. 800/- p.m.

(ii) The landlords further contended that before the petition was filed before the Rent Control Authority, a civil suit bearing No. 23-A/2007 was filed before the Civil Judge Class-II in the year 2007. Subsequently, during the pendency of that suit the new Act, C.G. Rent Control Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 2011”) came into being and the old Act namely C.G. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 was scrapped therefore the suit filed before Civil Court for ejectment was withdrawn on 27.03.2017.

(iii) The landlords further contended that in an another suit bearing No. 12-A of 2005 filed before the Third Civil Judge, Class II, Rajnandaon in between Ramashray vs. Rammanohar who are the family members of the landlords certain compromise was effected and on the basis of comprise, it was held that the respondents No. 1 and 2 are the landlords/owners.

(iv) Further, it was stated that after the Act of 2011 came into being, a notice was served by the respondents on 12.04.2017 for vacating the premises within a period of 6 months which was received by the tenant on 13.04.2017. However, after receipt of such notice the tenant failed to vacate the premises within a period of 6 months.

(v) Thereafter, application was filed seeking eviction as the 6 months' period lapsed on 12.10.2017 and landlords further stated that arrears of rent was also not paid.

(vi) Therefore, on joint grounds the petition was filed before the Rent Control Authority for eviction.

(vii) Before the Rent Control Authority, the tenant filed his reply and admitted the fact that he is the tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 800/-. Further, in respect of the ownership, it was stated t was required to be established by the landlords.

(viii) The tenant further contended that the earlier Civil Suit having been withdrawn without any liberty, the subsequent petition before the Rent Control Authority was not maintainable and the legality of the notice was also put into question and averments were leveled.

(ix) Thereafter, both the parties adduced their evidence and the learned Rent Control Authority passed the order of eviction with arrears of rent to be paid.

(x) Being aggrieved by such order, an appeal was preferred before the Rent Control Tribunal.

(xi) The Rent Control Tribunal too dismissed the appeal.

(xii) Hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant raised solitary ground before this Court leaving other grounds, would submit that the documents which have been placed on record and before this Court would show that land belongs to government, being a nazul land. Therefore, as per Section 3 of the Act of 2011, the applicability of Act of 2011 would be exempted. He would further submit that in a similarly situated case, learned Supreme Court in Parwati Bai vs. Radhika, AIR 2003 SC 3995 had occasion to discuss the similar situation with pari materia words like of C.G. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 exists that when the ownership belong to the government, the private ejectment suit would not be maintainable. Therefore, both the Courts below have exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it by law and committed mistake.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord would submit that the ownership is vested to the respondent by virtue of settlement and as per the WILL they