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.

ORDER :

Bibhu Datta Guru, J.

1. Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Arpan Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Counsel for Respondents No. 2 to 6.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

“1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal dated 24.03.2023 passed in Appeal No. 35A/2022 and the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 24.05.2022 passed by the Rent Control Authority and the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 12(2) read with Schedule 2 of Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 may kindly be allowed.

2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop :-

((a) The petitioner/ landlord instituted proceedings before the Rent Control Authority under Section 12(2), Schedule II of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 seeking eviction of the respondents from the tenanted premises and recovery of arrears of rent. The said proceedings were filed on 24.09.2015 stating that, the property situated at Amapara, presently Ward Tatyapara, Raipur, bearing House Nos. 583 to 586 admeasuring approximately 3000 sq. ft., originally belonged to Sant Dayal and Radhabai. On partition they obtained 1500 sq.ft. each. The disputed shop measuring 14 x 20 (280 sq. ft.) fall in the share of Radhabai. The petitioner herein purchased the said share of Radhabai by a registered sale deed dated 14.02.2000 and thereby became the owner of the land of 1500 sq.ft., which includes the disputed shop. It is further the case of the petitioner that late Nazir Ahmad, who is her father-in-law and father of respondent No. 1 to 6 herein, had taken the disputed shop on rent in the year 1977–78 from the previous owner at a monthly rent of Rs.110/- and was running a grocery business therein under the name “Ahmed Kirana Stores.” After his demise, the respondents, being his legal heirs, continued in possession of the disputed shop and carried on business therein. Upon purchase of the property by the petitioner, the respondents became her tenants by operation of law. The petitioner has averred that the respondents failed to pay rent regularly and that arrears for the preceding three years at the rate of Rs.110/- per month had accumulated, amounting to Rs.3,960/- along with interest. A legal notice dated 04.02.2015 was issued by the petitioner through registered post demanding vacant possession of the disputed shop and payment of arrears of rent. Though the respondents, in their reply dated 15.04.2015, admitted the tenancy of late Nazir Ahmad and their continued occupation after his death, they disputed the petitioner’s ownership by raising objections to the sale deed dated 14.02.2000. The petitioner denied such objections and asserted her exclusive ownership over the property. It is stated that despite service of notice and expiry of six months therefrom, the respondents neither ha