IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that non-impleadment of other legal heirs is not necessary for eviction, and the recovery of rent is limited to three years prior to the filing of the eviction application.

ORDER :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the petitioners herein / landlords is directed against the impugned order dated 16-1-2023 passed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur in Appeal No.33 A/2022, by which the learned Tribunal has allowed the appeal preferred by the tenant / respondent herein and set aside the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller in favour of the petitioners herein / landlords holding that relationship of landlord & tenant between the petitioners & the respondent has not been established and other heirs of Govind Agrawal have not been impleaded as party non-applicants in the eviction proceeding before the Rent Controller.

Brief Facts: -

2. The petitioners herein namely, Natthuram Agrawal & Pawan Agrawal, S/o Late Govind Agrawal, jointly filed an application under Section 12(2) read with Schedule 2 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (for short, ‘the Act of 2011’) against respondent herein Dr. Prahlad Rai Agrawal seeking his eviction and arrears of rent pleading inter alia that suit shop situate at Khasra No.1061/2, area 0.06 acre, was let out by father of petitioner No.2 namely Govind Agrawal to the respondent herein on monthly rent of Rs.42/- for running clinic. However, father of petitioner No.2 Govind Agrawal died and petitioner No.2 & petitioner No.1 Natthuram Agrawal both are title holders and petitioner No.2 has now become the landlord and the respondent is the tenant, as admitted by him in Civil Suit No.98A/1984 (Gopilal and another v. Prahlad Rai) decided on 25-10-1996 (Annexure P-3), and the respondent has not given rent with effect from 25-10-1996, neither he has vacated the premises nor running the clinic, it is locked and is getting damaged on account of non-maintenance. The petitioners had already sent legal notice on 22-11-2018 directing him to vacate the premises which he has not vacated leading to filing of application.

3. On being noticed, the respondent/tenant appeared before the Rent Controller and filed reply to the application in which in reply to paras 4 & 5, he has admitted the fact that he is the tenant of Govind Agrawal and not the tenant of Gopilal and also admitted the fact that he has not paid rent with effect from 25-10-1996 and also took specific plea in para 15 of the reply that he is in possession of the suit shop for last 12 years for running a clinic by which he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession and prayed for rejection of application.

4. The Rent Controller framed issues and held that by judgment dated 27-1-2003 passed in Civil Suit No.25A/2002 (Bajrang v. Gopilal and others), the suit shop has been held to be in the title of the petitioners herein as landlords, as the respondent herein has admitted, in Civil Suit No.98A/1984 (Gopilal and another v. Prahlad Rai) decided on 25-10-1996 (Annexure P-3), Govind Agrawal to be his landlord and furthermore, the Rent Controller has also held that proceeding for eviction in question of title cannot be adjudicated and despite notice, the respondent herein has not vacated the suit shop, therefore, it has been held that the petitioners herein are entitled for eviction of the respondent herein from the suit accommodation and rent with effect from 25-10-1996.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Rent Controller on 25-5-2022, the respondent herein had preferred appeal under Section 13 of the Act of 2011 before the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur and the learned Tribunal by its impugned order dated 16-1-2023 allowed the appeal holding that other legal heirs of Govind Agrawal have not been impleaded as party non-applicants in the eviction proceeding and title of Govind Agrawal is also not established and accordingly, proceeded to set aside the order of eviction passed in favour of the petitioners herein against which this writ petition has been preferred.

6. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, lear