Chattisgarh High Court
Ashish Kumar Dixit vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 April, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 90 of 2022
• Ashish Kumar Dixit S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Dixit, Aged About 40
Years Proprietor Ashish Enterprises, Golebazar Bilaspur, Police
Station City Kotwali, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue,
Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
2. Rent Control Authority Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
3. Gurmeet Singh Bhatiya, S/o Late Harbansh Singh Bhatiya, Aged
About 61 Years R/o Beside Of Bank Of India, Dayalband Bilaspur,
Police Station City Kotwali, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal,
Advocate
For Respondents/ State : Shri Sudeep Verma, Dy. G.A.
For Respondent No. 3 : Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri
Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi
Judgment on Board
Per Goutam Bhaduri, J.
12/04/20 22
Heard.
1. The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 07.02.2022
( Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC
No. 692 of 2022.
2. The facts of this case, in nutshell, is that respondent No. 3, filed
a petition before the Rent Control Authority under Section 12 (2)
of the Rent Control Act, 2011. During pendency of such petition,
an application was filed under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the CPC
and under Order 16 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC with a prayer that the
relation of landlord and tenant in between the parties do not
exist, which has been affirmed by judgment of the Civil Court in
Civil Suit No. 2-A/2011 dated 22.10.2018, as such the dispute,
inter se between the parties cannot be adjudicated by the Rent
Control Authority.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Rent Control
Authority would not be within its domain to exercise its
jurisdiction to decide the ownership of the property qua the
applicant and the Respondent No. 3. Consequently, if the
ownership is not vested with Respondent No. 3, then in such
case the petition for eviction before the Rent Control Authority
would not be maintainable. He further submits that both the
learned Single Judge and the Rent Control authority failed to
consider the facts of the case in its true perspective. Therefore,
the initial order of the Rent Control Authority dated 20.01.2022
and the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No.
692 of 2022 dated 07.02.2022 are required to be set aside by
allowing the application under Order 7 rule 11(d) of the CPC and
the application under Order 16 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3, vehemently opposes the
argument and submits that even after purchase of property in
the year 2012, still the benefits and fruits of the property is not
enjoyed by him and the appellant herein is enjoying the
property for some reason or another.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents on record.
6. Perusal of the documents would show that before Rent Control
Authority an application was filed by Respondent No. 3 under
Section 12 (2) of the Rent Control Act, 2011 (" for short Act of
2011"). During such adjudication, the subject application was
filed by the appellant herein on the ground that the landlord
tenant relation between the parties do not exist, therefore, the
issue which is pending would not be within the jurisdiction of the
Rent Control Authority. The said application was dismissed.
Further, while going through the records filed before the Learned
Single Judge and the order passed by the Civil Court in the case
Civil Suit No. 2-A/2011 dated 22.10.2018 which was brought by
Ashish Kumar Dixit (appellant herein) with a prayer that forceful
dispossession cannot be made by the defendant otherwise than
in due course of law. In such suits Sandeep Lal Gupta and
Gurmeet Simgh Bhatiya were defendants No. 1 & 2. Reading of
the said judgment would show at para 12 the Court recorded
the finding that subject property was purchased by Gurmeet
Singh Bhatiya for a consideration or Rs. 30 Lakhs on
12.06.2012 by registered sale deed. Subsequent, reading of
judgment would also show that the finding on the ejectment, it
was observed that in order to get an ejectment decree under
Section 12 (f) of C.G. Accommodation Control Act (old), 1961
the landlord needs to prove that the accommodation was let out
for non-residential purposes is required bonafide by the landlord
for the purpose of continuing or starting his business and no
other suitable accommodation is available to him. Subsequent,
the Act of 2011 came into being wherein different grounds for
ejection have been enumerated. Therefore, the earlier findings
recorded by Civil Judge is only with respect to interpretation of
earlier grounds as enumeration under Accommodation Act of
1961. The said Act having been replaced by other
Accommodation Control Act of 2011, the entire decision has to
be rendered, in accordance with the statutory mandate of Act of
2011.
7. The purchase having been made by the registered sale deed and
respondent No. 3 herein since has filed an application for
ejectment, we do not find any reason whereby provisions of
Order 7 Rule 11(d) can be set into motion. Rather the findings
of ownership in a earlier Civil Suit is recorded in favour of
Respondent No. 3, and therefore he would be entitled to
maintain a petition for ejectment before the Rent Control
Authority against the tenant under the Act of 2011.
Consequently, the dismissal of application under Order 7 Rule
11(d) of CPC and application under Order 16 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC
is justified in the facts of this case. The interim relief granted
earlier shall stand vacated.
8. In view of this, the appeal sans merit is liable to be and is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Goutam Bhaduri) (N.K. Chandravanshi )
Judge Judge
Jyoti
