Chattisgarh High Court
Mohd Siddiquie vs Asha Nadam on 13 May, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WP227 No. 282 of 2022
Mohd Siddiquie S/o Mohd. Gaffar, Aged About 72 Years R/o Near Main Road,
Gandhi Putla,ward No. 34, Juna Bilaspur, Old High Court Road, In Front Of
Khanduja Hospital, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Asha Nadam W/o Late Shri C.S. Lalit Nadam Aged About 61 Years R/o Near
Main Road, Gandhi Putla,ward No. 34, Juna Bilaspur, Old High Court Road, In
Front Of Khanduja Hospital, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
2. Sunil Nadam S/o Late Shri C.S. Lalit Nadam Aged About 37 Years R/o Near
Main Road, Gandhi Putla,ward No. 34, Juna Bilaspur, Old High Court Road, In
Front Of Khanduja Hospital Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
3. Smt. C.G. Ritu W/o C.H. Gonal Aged About 40 Years R/o 2-2-297 Kishanpura
Hanamkunda, Warangal (Telangana), 500601.
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondents : Shri Pankaj Singh, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri
& Hon'ble Shri Justice NK Chandravanshi
Order On Board
13/05/2022
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner/tenant invoking power vested
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby the order dated 04 th of
May, 2018 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal,
at Raipur, is under challenge. The order is for eviction of the petitioner/tenant.
2. The facts of this case are that the petitioner was tenant of respondents. A notice
was served to the petitioner as per Section 12 read with Schedule 2 Clause 11
(h) Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act,
2011') on 28.10.2016, whereby he was asked to vacate the premises by
30.11.2016. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the said notice fails
to satisfy the statutory requirement as required under Schedule 2 Clause 11 (h)
of the Act, 2011, which mandates that 6 months notice to the tenant in writing
would be necessary to get an eviction as per Section 12 of the Act, 2011.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the statute provides
certain thing to be done in a particular way then no deviation can be made and
referred to law laid down in the case of K. LUBNA & ORS VERSUS BEEVI &
ORS (CIVIL APPEAL NOs.2442-2443 OF 2011, judgment delivered on 13 th
of January, 2020), and it is contended that pure question of law can be
examined at any stage, even if no pleading in this regard was made. He further
relies on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of OPTO Circuit India
Ltd. Versus Axis Bank & Ors. {Criminal Appeal No.102 of 2021} wherein
reiterating the law laid down in the case of Chandra Kishor Jha Vs. Mahavir
Prasad and Ors. {(1999) 8 SCC 266} the Court observed that the salutary
principle that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner,
then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. Accordingly, the
notice giving one month time to get the premises vacated, would not satisfy the
provisions of the Schedule 2 Clause 11 (h), therefore, the eviction order passed
by both the Rent Control Authority and Rent Control Tribunal would be bad in
law and requires interference by this Court.
4. Per contra, Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the purpose
of the notice which is to be issued and to be sent is to be examined. He would
further submit that admittedly in this case though the notice period it was written
that on 30.11.2016 to vacate the premises but at clause 4 of the notice
categorical reference was made to Schedule 2 Clause 11 (h) of the Act, 2011
and the suit was filed by the petitioner in the month of May, 2017, therefore, by
implication and by act of respondent the purpose of Schedule 2 Clause 11 (h) of
the Act, 2011 was carried out. Therefore, the orders passed by both the
authorities i.e. Rent Control Authority and Rent Control Tribunal are well
merited, which do not require any interference by this Court.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.
6. The short question which comes to fore that whether the notice given by the
respondent/landlord to vacate the premises could have been acted upon or
not ? Section 12 of the Act, 2011 refers that every tenant shall have the right
according to Schedule 1 of the Act, 2011 and every landlord shall have rights
according to Schedule 2. The Schedule 2 of the Act which lays down the
Landlord's Rights available under the Act is framed under Section 12 (2) of the
Act, 2011.
7. Sections 12 (2) and 11 (h) of the Act, 2011 read as under:-
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 the accommodation to the tenant, benefit thereof
shall be granted to the landlord.
11. Right to seek from the Rent Controller eviction of the tenant on
the following grounds :-
(a) xxx xxx xxx
(b) xxx xxx xxx
(c) xxx xxx xxx
(d) xxx xxx xxx
(e) xxx xxx xxx
(f) xxx xxx xxx
(g) xxx xxx xxx
(h) On 6 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:
Provided, however, that in case of the following special categories of landlords
and/or their spouse desiring the accommodation back for own use, the period of notice
shall be one month: current or retired government servants, widows, personnel of the
armed forces, persons coming to physical or mental handicap, and senior citizens
(above the age of 65 years).
8. The notice which is been placed on record is dated 28.10.2016. Reading of it
would show that the notice was sent to get the premises vacated by
30.11.2016. Though the tenant was called upon to vacate the premises by
30.11.2016 but at clause 4, the reference was made particularly to Schedule 2
Clause 11 (h) of the Act, 2011 with a specific averment that six months notice is
being served pursuant to the Act, 2011. It was further stated that undertaking
was given after eviction thereafter 12 months it would not be given on rent to
anyone. There is no dispute about the fact that eventually the suit for eviction
was filed in the month of May, 2017 i.e. naturally beyond the period of six
months from the date of notice of 28.10.2016.
9. Reading of Section 12 of the Act, 2011 would show that it was promulgated on
6th November, 2012 and would show that the earlier object of the Act, is that
Rent Control Act, 1961 had lost its practicability and the earlier Act was leaning
in favour of tenant too much. Consequently, to lease out a premise under rent
had become unpopular. Therefore, the fresh Act was thought to be set which
would strike the balance in favour of both. With such object when we examine
Section 12 (2) of the Act, 2011 it shows that section gives the obligation to
tenant and landlord both. The Section when read in harmony with Schedule 2
Clause 11 (h) of the Act, 2011 it purports that when the landlord gives 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 at least 12 months, thereafter, the ejectment order can be
passed. The Centrality of the Act, 2011 is to curtail the pursuits of justice by
long and ardous battle will therefore, prevail over the fumbling effort of tenant in
the instant case.
10. When the facts are examined in this case, it would show that eventually the
petition for eviction was filed beyond the period of six months. Consequently,
the gap which was to be lean in favour of the tenant satisfied by efflux of time.
Undoubtedly, the protest can be raised by any party when it touches upon the
legal ground even there is no pleading but each case has its own facts. When
the suit itself was filed for eviction before the Rent Control Authority beyond the
period of six months, then the right which was given to a tenant for a period of
six months to get a protection despite the date shown notice was satisfied
automatically.
11. Further we are not inclined to adopt a hyper-technicality in the subject issue
inasmuch the intention of the landlord was required to be seen. It is a settled
proposition of law that if any statute or legislation including the notice to quit is
construed with a view to find fault with, it is likely to loose its effectiveness.
Interpretation should however be to ensure not to render such notice, a wide or
futile one hyper-critical or pedantic approach should not be made a basis for
determining the validity or otherwise of any such notice rather a common sense
path coupled with a realistic and simplistic approach should be preferred to be
treaded upon in the salubrious exercise of giving a harmonious construction to
any statute.
12. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to exercise the power vested under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the order passed by Rent
Control Authority and Rent Control Tribunal.
13. As a result, the petition sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
SD/- SD/-
Goutam Bhaduri NK Chandravanshi
Judge Judge
Ashu
