The court upheld the eviction order based on proper evidence assessment, affirming the landlord-tenant relationship and the tenant's obligation to pay arrears.

Order on Board

22/04/2025

Per Sachin Singh Rajput, J.

This petition has been filed against order dated 17.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, CG in Appeal No. 04-A/2024 by which the order dated 01.01.2024 passed by Rent Control Authority, Manendragarh, CG in Case No. A-90/(3) year 2019-20, has been affirmed.

2. As per pleadings, the original applicant Murlidhar Vaishya is the owner of building/premises situated in front of Jaiswal Petrol Pump, beside B.S. Mart, Ambikapur road, Manendragarh-Chirmiri, District Manendragarh, CG, in the said building/premises various tenants are running their business. The said suit premises is in part of Khasra No. 216. The petitioner is a tenant for about 50 years and his business establishment runs in the suit premises which is around 15X25=375 sq.ft. An application under Section 12 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act , 2011 (for short “Act of 2011”) was filed for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises and also to pay the arrears of rent. The application was allowed by the learned Rent Controller vide its order dated 01.01.2024 and directed the petitioner to vacate the suit premises and to pay the arrears of rent of Rs. 81,600/-. The order was subjected to challenge by the petitioner before the learned Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, CG which by the impugned order dated 17.03.2025 dismissed the appeal. Assailing the same, this writ petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal are perverse and contrary to the evidence. He submits that both the authorities have not considered the evidence to its proper prospective therefore, this writ petition may be admitted for hearing. However, he fairly submits that in compliance of the order passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal, the key of the suit premises has already been handed over to the respondent but the goods of the petitioner are still lying in the suit premises. He further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to also pay the arrears of rent of Rs. 81,600/-. He submits that the petitioner is in occupation of the suit premises as a tenant for about 50 years and still availing to execute a fresh rent agreement with the respondent and therefore, this writ petition has been filed.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. The learned Rent Controller on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed two issues. The first issue framed by the learned Rent Controller is that whether the original respondent is the owner of the suit premises. This issue is decided in favour of the respondent and after assessment of the evidence, it does not require any interference. The another issue is with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent. After assessment of the evidence, this issue has been decided in favour of the respondent. Even otherwise, the tenancy of the petitioner and the suit premises is seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, the finding recorded by learned Rent Controller needs no interference.

6. The learned Rent Controller while deciding the another issue with regard to the arrears of rent also held that the respondent are entitled to Rs. 81.600/- from the petitioner. The findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller which is also affirmed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal appears to be based on proper appreciation of evidence and material available on record. Even otherwise, as per petitioner’s counsel the key of the suit premises has already been hand over and he is ready and willing to pay Rs. 81,600/- arrears of rent. Therefore, this Court does not find any scope for interference in the impugned order and the petition is not worth for admission. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall vacate the suit premises after removin