Order On Board

By Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

15 /12/2022 1. Heard.

2. Shri Jagannath Verma, Joint Collector, Rent Control Authority,

Raipur appears in person and submits the record of Rent Control Authority.

3. The present petition is against the order dated 14-09-2021 passed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur in appeal No.21-A/2019, whereby the order passed by the Rent Control Authority, Raipur on 07-06-2018 for eviction was affirmed. Now the instant petition is filed by the tenant.

4. The brief case of the landlord was that an application for ejectment was filed by Vishvajit Haldhar that he owns a shop situated at ward No.50 Santoshi nagar bearing No.50/1047/2 and out of such constructed shops, shop No.3 was let out to the tenant on 01-01-2011 for a period of eleven months which was to end on 30-11-2011. Landlord contended that after the period of tenancy was over, the tenant did not hand over the vacant possession, consequently, a notice was served on 26-09-2013 for arrears of rent and for vacant possession. Landlord contended that neither the arrears of rent was tendered nor the vacant possession was handed over to the landlord. Eventually, an application for ejectment was filed under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2011). The tenant/petitioner herein appeared before the Rent Control Authority and stated that the tenanted premises was taken on rent from 2005 and he was not in arrears to tender the amount. It was further stated that when the landlord refused to accept the rent, an application was filed before the Rent Control Authority to deposit the rent as also the landlord tried to forcefully evict the tenant from the premises, for which, a Civil Suit was also filed. Therefore, on some ground or the other, false projection was made by the landlord to get the premises evicted.

5. On the basis of evidence adduced by both the parties, the learned Rent Control Authority passed the order of ejectment on 07-06-2018. Being aggrieved by such order, the tenant filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. The Tribunal by order dated 14-09-2021, dismissed the appeal. Hence, the instant petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that statutory notice which is required under Section 12 of the Act, 2011 was never served to the tenant and ,therefore, the cause of action never accrued in favour of the landlord. She would further submit that the security amount which was in hold by the landlord, was not tendered back. Consequently, this too will also fall under the default to claim any eviction. Learned counsel submits that as such both the Rent Control Authority and Rent Control Tribunal failed to appreciate these facts and came to a wrong finding which requires an interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit

that the tenancy was for a specific period from 01-01-2011 to 30-11-2011. Since the tenancy was for limited period, after the period of tenancy, when the vacant possession was not handed over and the rent was not tendered, consecutively, a notice was served on 26-09-2013 which was replied by the tenant, therefore, the submission of the petitioner that notice was not served is not correct. He would further submit that finding of fact which is on record would show that despite the service of notice it was obligation on the part of tenant to pay the rent but he failed to tender the rent consecutively for more than three months. Therefore, right has accrued to the landlord to get the premises vacated under Section 12 (2)Schedule 2 clause 3 and the orders of the Rent Control Authority and Rent Control Tribunal are well merited which do not call for any interference by this Court.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Rent Control Authority.

9. Perusal of the record would show an ejectment application was