ORDER :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

1. Heard.

2. By way of instant petition, the order dated 06.5.2022 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur is under challenge whereby the Tribunal has affirmed the order passed by the Rent Control Authority, Manendragarh on 08.2.2021.

3. The present petition is by the landlord against the dismissal of application for eviction against the respondent/tenant.

4. The brief facts of this case are that the petitioner Praveen Kumar Jain had filed an eviction petition against respondent Hari Lal Yadav stating that father of Hari Lal Yadav was the tenant of the subject suit premises and was carrying on a business of Hotel. After death of Ramdhari Yadav, the father of respondent, the respondent became the tenant and for last two year, the premises was placed under a lock. It was further stated that respondent has not paid the rent from 30.12.2000. The petitioner, landlord further pleaded that a notice dated 03.2.2016 was served to the tenant under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (for short 'the Act, 2011') claiming vacant possession of the subject suit premises, but, instead of vacating the said premises, it is stated that the tenant/respondent raised the plea of adverse possession and claimed to have become the owner. Consequently, on 28.3.2018, an application was preferred by the petitioner before the Rent Control Authority, Manendragarh claiming vacant possession of premises along with arrears of rent.

5. The respondent/tenant filed his reply and stated that his father namely Ramdhari Yadav was the tenant of the suit premises and after his death the landlord and tenant relation in between the parties came to an end. It was further stated that after the year 2000, the relation between the parties as a landlord and tenant never subsisted and no rent was paid or claimed for the last 18 years and has become owner of premises, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to receive any rent and claimed for dismissal of the petition.

6. Ms. Priyanka Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that both the orders of the Rent Control Authority and the Rent Control Tribunal are misconceived and she referred to the affidavit and admission to submit that the tenancy was admitted and as per Section 12(4) (ii)(b) of the Act, 2011, the respondent having stepped into the shoes of his father would be a tenant as per the definition of the Act, 2011. She would further submit that though the adverse possession plea was raised, but, nothing is on record to show that such claim was slated anywhere so as to fortify the same by way of tax receipt to claim the ownership. She would further submit that though the tenancy was denied but the rent receipt was produced vide Ex. D1 which in turn would show the relation of landlord and tenant was admitted. Consequently, the finding arrived at by both the Courts below is completely misconceived and liable to be set-aside along with the arrears of rent to which the petitioner is entitled.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the finding arrived at by both the Court below are well merited. He would submit that the petitioner though claimed himself to be a landlord did not produce any document to show that the ownership vested with them at any point of time. He would further submit that not a single rent receipt after death of Ramdhari Yadav has been placed on record to show the landlord and tenant relation. He would submit that when the relation of ownership and the tenancy has not been established, the operation of the Act, 2011 cannot be set into motion thereby the judgment and the order of the Rent Control Authority and the Rent Control Tribunal do not call for any interference.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

9. The petitioner had filed an application seeking eviction after issuance of notice (Ex. P1) on 03.2.2016 which was replied vide Ex. P2 on 05.3.2016. Perusal of Ex. P1, the notice would show