C A V Order

Per Bibhu Datta Guru , J .

1. The present petition is against the order dated 06.04.2022 passed

by the Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur in Appeal No. 13-A/2021 by which the appellate tribunal has reversed the order passed by the Rent control Authority, Raipur in Case No. 64-90(8) year 2017-

2018.

2. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner herein, is the owner of shop situated upon upon area 7 X 10 = 70 sq.ft at Oswal Ispat Udyog, Tatibandh Raipur. The said shop was given to the respondent on monthly rent of Rs. 1100/-, an agreement was executed between the petitioner and respondent on 01.03.2006. The respondent has paid monthly rent till February, 2016, thereafter ,the respondent has not paid the rent amount to the petitioner, for which the petitioner sent a legal notice for payment of rent from March, 2016 and for eviction of the respondent from the shop in question, but in spite of the service of notice, the respondent has not evicted from the question shop. The petitioner filed an application under Section 12 of Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (for short, ‘the Act, 2011’) for eviction of the respondent from the shop in question before the learned Rent Control Authority, Raipur. After service of notice, the respondent filed reply before the Rent Control Authority and submitted that he has purchased the suit shop from the petitioner by paying the entire consideration amount, therefore prayed dismissal of the said application.

3. After hearing the parties vide order dated 19.02.2021 (Annexure

P/2), learned Rent Control Authority, Raipur has allowed the application of the petitioner and directed the eviction of the respondent from the shop in question within one month and also directed to pay the balance rent amount to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.02.2021, the respondent filed an appeal before the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, in the appeal vide impugned order (Annexure P/1) dated 06.04.2022, the tribunal has allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 19.02.2021 by holding that there is no relation of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the tribunal has committed grave error by holding that there is no relation of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent. He submits that the shop in question was given by the State to the petitioner on lease/patta for a period of 100 years. From perusal of the lease agreement Annexure C/1 the agreement only restricted transfer of the property and there is no restriction for sub-tenant. Ex. P/2 is an agreement between the petitioner and the respondent for grant of the shop in question to the respondent on rent and the petitioner never denies the execution of Ex. P/2. He further submits that Rent Control Authority in its order paragraph 7 observed that there is landlord tenant relation existing between the parties and the paragraph 8 of the evidence of respondent he has accepted the execution of agreement Annexure P/2. He has also accepted the payment of rent amounting to Rs. 1100/- to the petitioner and the Rent Control Authority has held that there is a relation of landlord and tenant is existing between the parties. But in the tribunal in this appeal in the appellate order in paragraph 8 reversed the finding observing that mere execution of Annexure P/2 will not be sufÏcient to hold that there is a relation of landlord and tenant is existing between the parties. He relied upon the judgement of Division of this High Court in the matter of Ramneesh Kaushal Vs. Smt. Champa Devi1, that for purpose of adjudication of an application under the Act, 2011 landlord is not synonym to the ownership except for payment & receipt of rent.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the shop in question was owned by the petitioner on the basis of a lease executed by the State and he cannot sublet the same. He further submits that Section 3 of Rent Control Act, 2011 p