Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 19736
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Parth Prateem Sahu, Sachin Singh Rajput, JJ
RAMESH ARYA – Appellant
Versus
SHRI HEMANT AGRAWAL – Respondent
WPC No. 3077 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dheerendra Pandey
For the Respondents: Atanu Ghosh
Under Clause 11(h) of Schedule 2 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act 2011, a landlord can seek eviction by serving a six-month notice without assigning any reason, provided the premises are not leased at a higher rent for at least 12 months thereafter.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged an order of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal affirming an eviction order passed by the Rent Control Authority under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011. The original landlady had sought eviction of the tenant from a grocery shop on the grounds of bona fide requirement for her son and grandson, serving a notice dated 25.01.2021. The Rent Control Authority allowed the eviction, and the Tribunal subsequently modified the ground of eviction from Clause 11(g) to Clause 11(h) of Schedule 2 of Section 12(2) of the Act, noting that since a six-month notice period had elapsed, the landlord was not obligated to assign a reason, provided the premises were not leased at a higher rent for 12 months. The primary issue was whether the eviction of the tenant suffered from any illegality or perversity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court reasoned that under Clause 11(h) of Schedule 2, a landlord can seek eviction by serving a six-month notice without assigning any reason, provided the condition regarding future rent is met. Since the landlord-tenant relationship was undisputed and the notice period had expired, the Tribunal's conversion of the eviction ground was legally sound. Accordingly, the petition has no merit and is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost (s).
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history of eviction application and subsequent appeals. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. tenant's contention regarding lack of bona fide need and vague application. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. determination of the core legal question regarding the legality of eviction. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. interpretation of section 12 and schedule 2 regarding landlord's rights. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. application of clause 11(h) allowing eviction without assigned reason after six-month notice. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. dismissal of petition due to lack of perversity in the tribunal's order. (Para 21 , 22) |
DB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Order on Board
Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J
24.06.2026
1. Heard on admission.
2. Challenge is this petition is to the order dated 11.5.2026 passed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in Appeal No.34A/2024 arising out of the order dated 30.5.2024 passed by learned Rent Control Authority, Raipur (for short ‘the Authority’) in Case No.30/A-90(7) year 2020-21.
3. This is tenant’s appeal.
4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that an application under Sections 8 and 12 (2) of the the Act of 2011 was filed by original applicant (who died during pendency of application), pleading that she is owner of shop constructed over land situated in PH No.32, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, said shop was let out to petitioner-non-applicant-tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.1500/- in which he was running grocery shop. Since both the applicant and the non-applicant are residents of Sarkanda and shared cordial relations, no written tenancy agreement was executed between the parties. Applicant requested the non-applicant to vacate the shop and handover vacant possession as the same is needed by her for the business of her son and grandson. Non-applicant assured to vacate the shop by 31.12.2020, but he did not vacate. Applicant issued registered notice dated 25.1.2021 to non-applicant calling upon him to vacate the shop and to pay arrears of rent. However, non-applicant failed to vacate the shop and to pay arrears of rent despite service of notice. Therefore, the applicant filed application seeking eviction of non-applicant from the shop in question and for payment of arrears of rent.
5. Non-applicant filed reply and admitted the landlady-tenant relationship, however, denied that applicant ever asked him to vacate the shop nor he along with other tenants had quarreled and threatened applicant and her husband on such demand being made. He never gave assurance to vacate the shop by 31.12.2020. He is regularly paying fixed rent to landlady. Applicant owns many shops in the city of Bilaspur and she does not require the suit shop. Non-applicant has not acted illegally or inappropriately giving rise to cause of action in favour of applicant to file eviction application.
6. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controlling Authority framed as many as three issues and granted opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. After considering the evidence, documents, pleadings and submissions advanced by parties, the Rent Controlling Authority vide order dated 30.5.2024 allowed the application for eviction and directed the tenant to handover vacant possession of the shop in question to the legal heirs of deceased landlady. The Authority has held that tenant was duly served with six month’s notice as required under Section 12 (2) read with sub-para (h) of Sr. No.11 of Schedule-II of the Act of 2011; despite service of notice, tenant did not vacate the shop; said act of tenant is contrary to provisions of the Act of 2011; since the eviction application is filed under Section 12 (2) of the Act of 2011, tenant is not required to prove need of accommodation by her.
7. Non-applicant/tenant filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal against the order dated 30.5.2024, which came to be registered as Appeal No.34A/2024. By the order impugned,
