Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAJANI DUBEY, AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD, JJ.
Onkar Prasad Sajwani, S/o. Shri Bahrumal Sajwani - Petitioner
Versus
Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) & Ors. - Respondents
WPC No. 5576 of 2022
Decided On : 11-09-2024
(A) Rent Control Act, 2011 - Sections 2(5) and 2(14) - Landlord and tenant relationship - The petitioner sought to establish a landlord-tenant relationship with the respondents, who denied such relationship, leading to a dispute over possession and rent. The Tribunal found that the petitioner failed to prove the existence of this relationship, resulting in the dismissal of the petition. (Paras 3, 7, 13)
(B) Legal principles - The distinction between lease and license was discussed, emphasizing the intention of the parties in determining the nature of the agreement. The court reiterated that exclusive possession does not automatically imply a tenancy. (Paras 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed ownership of a property and sought eviction of respondents, who were relatives and allegedly tenants. After the petitioner's brother's death, the respondents denied the tenancy and refused to pay rent. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal concluded that the petitioner did not establish a landlord-tenant relationship, thus allowing the appeal of the respondents. (Paras 13)
Issues: The main issues included the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship and the validity of the sale deed. (Paras 3, 7)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner failed to prove the landlord-tenant relationship, and the Tribunal's findings were consistent with the Rent Control Act and relevant case law. (Paras 13)
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Rajani Dubey, J.
1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 01.12.2022 passed by respondent no. 1 in Appeal Case No. 20-A/2022 between "Smt. Bharti Devi Sajwani & others Vs. Onkar Prasad Sajwani" (Annexure-P/1), is in the interest of justice.
10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.”
2. Facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, in brief are that the petitioner is the owner of the house constructed upon the khasra No.35/1 admeasuring area 0.15 acre situated at Village Jarhabhatha, P.H.No.38, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.). The brother of the petitioner namely Kripaldas was residing in the First Floor of the said house as tenant from month of January 1995 and rent has been agreed between the parties to the tune of Rs.1,000/- per month. After the death of the brother of the petitioner, respondent no.3 to 5 denied the title of the petitioner and also stopped to make payment of rent. The petitioner requested to the respondent no.3 to 5 for handing over the possession of the suit house, but they refused and assaulted the the petitioner, therefore on 11.06.2020 petitioner sent legal notice to the respondent no. 3 to 5. The respondent no. 3 to 5 replied the said legal notice on 09.07.2020, wherein they stated that they are the owner of the suit house and refused to hand over the vacant possession to the petitioner. Thereafter petitioner preferred suit before respondent no.2 against the respondent no.3 to 5 for recovery of the possession and arrears of the rent. The respondent no. 3 to 5 denied the plaint averment in written statement and they categorically stated that they are the owner of the suit house. By way of the order dated 07.03.2022 respondent no. 2 allowed the plaint and directed to the respondent no. 3 to 5 to hand over the vacant possession of the suit house to the petitioner within 01 months from the date of the order and further directed to pay arrears of the rent from month of January 2018 upto possession @ Rs. 10,000/- per month. Being aggrieved by the order dated 07.03.2022, respondent no. 3 to 5 preferred the appeal before respondent no.1, which has been allowed and the order passed by the respondent no.2 has been reversed. Hence this petition has been filed by the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent authorities is bad, illegal and contrary to the settled principles of law. The respondent no.1 wrongly concluded that the petitioner has failed to establish the relationship with respondent no. 3 to 5 as landlord and tenant. The respondent no.1 wrongly concluded that the dispute in respect of the title has been involved between the parties. The respondent no.1 wrongly discarded the statement of the witnesses. The respondent no.3 to 5 admitted that they are the tenant of the petitioner in the cross examination of PW-2 Onkar Prasad Sajwani and DW-4 Gurumukh Das Motwani. The respondent no.1 wrongly disbelieved the sale deed dated 26.10.1981 (Ex-P/16) as well as the the material available on record. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Gangabai vs Chhabu Bai, reported in (1982) 1 SCC 4, A. Abdul Rashid Khan (Dead) and others vs P.A.K.A. Shahul Hamid and others, reported in (2000) 10 SCC 636 and S. Saktivel (Dead) by LRs vs M. Venugopal Pillai and others, reported in (2000) 7 SCC 104.
4. Learned State counsel supports the impugned order/judgment.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 to 5 strongly opposes the submission made by the petitioner’s counse
The court affirmed that the petitioner failed to establish a landlord-tenant relationship, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Ownership does not automatically establish a landlord-tenant relationship without evidence of rent agreements or payments, as confirmed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011.
The court affirmed that a registered sale deed is decisive in establishing landlord-tenant relationships, overriding claims based on wills or agreements without proper legal standing.
Tenants cannot challenge the landlord's title in eviction proceedings; only the landlord-tenant relationship is relevant under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1968, specifically Section 14(1)(a) and (j) to determine the existence of the ....
Ownership issues cannot be determined in eviction suits, and certified copies of public documents are admissible in evidence.
Ownership issues cannot be adjudicated in eviction suits; certified copies of public documents are admissible as evidence.
Tenancy and Land laws - Eviction - There is nothing that petitioners have been able to bring forth to indicate that finding has been arrived at by a misreading of facts or omitting relevant evidence ....
Landlords need only establish a better title than the tenant in eviction proceedings, and the powers of review are confined to addressing patent errors without reappraising previously settled materia....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
