Order On Board

Per Goutam Bhaduri, J

08.12.2022

1. Heard.

2. The instant petition is filed against order dated 09.11.2021 passed by Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur in Appeal No.43A/2019, whereby the order of eviction dated 21.8.2019 passed by Rent Control Authority, Durg in Case No.4-A/90/2014-15 has been affirmed.

3. Brief facts of the case, are that, as per the pleading of the landlords/respondents, they filed petition for eviction before the Rent Control Authority. The petitioner obtained a shop on rent @

Rs.1220/- per month. The respondents herein served notice initially on 03.6.2013 and sought for vacant possession of the premises in accordance with Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (for short ‘the Act, 2011’). It is the case of the landlords that even after six months of service of the notice, though the notice was replied by the petitioner/tenant, but he refused to handover the vacant possession of the premises to the landlord. Therefore, the petition was filed to get the vacant possession of the premises.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the notice which was issued by the landlord was dehors the Act of 2011 and the landlord has failed to prove the fact that said notice was ever served to the petitioner/tenant. He would further submit that apart from this fact, no agreement exists which is mandatory under Section 4 of the Act 2011, therefore, in absence of such agreement in between the parties, tenancy petition could not have been entertained and provisions of the Act 2011 cannot be invoked. He would further submit that these issues go to the root of the matter and requires interference as wrong order has been passed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that as per the findings of both the Courts below, the tenency was admitted by the petitioner and despite the service of notice, the petitioner failed to vacate the premises. He would further submit that in respect of registration of agreement under Section 4 of the Act 2011, this Court has already laid down in WPC No.650/2020 (Shrawan Kumar Saraf vs. Ravikant Mishra & Ors.) that registration of the agreement under Section 4 of the Act, 2011 is not mandatory. He would submit that the petition has no merit which is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.

6. Perusal of the order and the documents filed would show that initially registered notice dated 03.6.2013 (Ex-P/1) was served to the petitioner in accordance to Section 12(2) Schedule 2 S. No.11(h) and after service of notice, on 15.10.2014 an application was preferred to vacate the premises. Under the Act of 2011, the Rent Control Authority is the first adjudicatory authority to carry out the provisions of the Act of 2011 and these findings that after notice dated 03.6.2013, when the petitioner failed to vacate the premises, an application was filed before the Rent Control Authority on 15.10.2014 is the finding of fact and we do not like to deliberate on this.

7. The landlord’s right available under Section 12(2) read with Schedule 2 S.No.11(h) of the Act 2011 purports that on six months notice to the tenant in writing, without any obligation to assign any reason, but on the condition that the accommodation will not be leased out at a higher rent for atleast 12 months thereafter. For the sake of brevity, Section 12(2) and subsequent clause 11(h) of the Schedule 2 of the Act, 2011 is reproduced hereunder: 12. Rights and Obligations of Landlords and Tenants. -

(1) xxx xxx xxx (2) Every landlord shall have rights according to Schedule 2.The Tribunal and Rent Controller shall act at all times to secure to the landlord these rights:

Provided that--

(a) In case of any clash of interests of the landlord and the tenant and/or any point of doubt in respect of matters relating to rent, the benefit thereof shall be granted to the tenant.

(b) In case of any clash of interests of the landlord and the tenant, and/or any point of doubt in respect of matters relating to returning possession of t