Chattisgarh High Court
Mahesh Prasad Verma vs Radheshyam Natthani on 7 September, 2022
1
WPC 372 of 2020
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 3169 of 2020
• Mahesh Prasad Verma S/o Kedarnath Verma Aged About 57
Years R/o Shop No. 43, M.V. Market, Near Old Bus Stand
Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Radheshyam Natthani S/o Late Alam Chand Natthani Aged
About 67 Years
2. Deleted
2 (a) Smt. Rani Bai Natthani wd/o Ashok Kumar Natthani, aged
about 60 years.
2 (b) Ashish Natthani S/o Ashok Natthani, Aged About 30 Years
3. Mahendra Kumar Natthani S/o Late Sheetal Das Natthani Aged
About 50 Years
All are R/o of M.V. Market, Near Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, Tahsil
And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri T. K. Jha, Advocate
For Respondents : Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Judgment on Board
Per Goutam Bhaduri, J.
07/09/20 22
Heard.
WPC 372 of 2020
1. The present petition is against the primary order dated
13.07.2018 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Rent Control
Tribunal, Raipur whereby the order passed by the Rent
Control Authority, Bilaspur for eviction of the suit property
and arrears of rent dated 05.01.2018 (Annexure P-1) was
affirmed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that :-
• Initially against the order of the Rent Control
Tribunal, Raipur (Annexure P- 2), the petitioner
approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
• The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated
18.02.2020 upheld that the petition would be
maintainable before the High Court.
• Consequently, the present petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that initially
deposit of Rs. 30,000/- was made and during pendency of
the proceeding before the Rent Control Authority draft of
Rs.49,000/- and Rs.5,000/- was deposited meaning
thereby Rs. 54,000/- was already deposited. However, the
Tribunal has ordered for arrears of rent of Rs. 97,800/-,
therefore, material error exists on the face of it and this
issue was not considered by the authorities. Consequently,
the case may be redirected to Rent Control Authority to
reconsider the quantum of arrears.
WPC 372 of 2020
4. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that
according to the own case of the petitioner initial tenancy
was of Rs. 500/-, wherein it was agreed that Rs. 100/-
would be deducted in lieu of the deposit meaning thereby
the rent was paid as Rs. 400/- p.m. but subsequently in a
civil suit a compromise decree was drawn, whereby it was
agreed that petitioner as tenant would pay Rs. 2,000/- p.m.
rent from October, 2002 and there would be 10% increase
in every 3 years. He would further submit that
consequently, the question of earlier deposit was forgone
and this Court in exercise of power under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India may not go into finding of facts when
no jurisdictional error is pointed out.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material on record.
6. Perusal of the records would show that initially by order
dated 05.01.2018, the Rent Control Authority, Bilaspur
passed an order of eviction in respect of the suit premises
along with arrears of rent. The said order was subject of
challenge before the Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur under
the C.G. Rent Control Act, 2011. The Rent Control Tribunal
by its order dated 13.07.2018 (Annexure P-2) affirmed the
order of Rent Control Authority whereby eviction order was
passed along with arrears of rent of Rs. 97,800/-. It is not
in dispute that, in the meanwhile, the petitioner filed a
WPC 372 of 2020
petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the
order of the Rent Control Tribunal and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that petition can be tenable before the
High court. As such, this petition was filed under Article 227
of the Constitution of India.
7. Perusal of order sheet dated 19.03.2021, would show that
during pendency of the proceeding before the Court the
possession of the premises was taken over by the land-
lord, as such, the petitioner (tenant herein) confined his
challenge to the arrears of rent alone.
8. The perusal of the order of Rent Control Authority and Rent
Control Tribunal would show that it was the case of the
petitioner that after the decree was drawn in civil suit No.
88-A/ 2002, it was agreed that amount of Rs. 2000/- as
rent would be paid with periodical increase in every 3
years. According to the petitioner, the petitioner calculated
the quantum of rent and started sending it which was
refused by the land-lord. Along with the reply before this
Court a chart was filed by the petitioner as Annexure R-1.
Perusal of it shows that the petitioner calculated the
quantum of rent according to his own calculations by
deducting Rs. 30,000/- in part and deposited arrears of
rent @ Rs. 2,800/- p.m. Since, before this Court learned
counsel for the respondent submitted that after the order
passed by Rent Control Authority an amount of Rs.
WPC 372 of 2020
54,000/- was deposited, naturally it would fall for
adjustment in recovery of the arrears. It is obvious that
when a decree of compromise has been drawn in a Civil
suit, the petitioner and the respondent who were party to it
would be bound by it and this Court in exercise of power
under Article 227 of Constitution of India would not go to
check the validity of it as it is the settled proposition that
the Court cannot go beyond the decree. Therefore, the
finding of fact arrived at by both the courts appear to be
without any jurisdictional error and do not require any
interference. It goes without saying that the amount
deposited by the petitioner/ tenant of Rs. 54,000/- would be
adjusted while recovery of rest of the arrears, since deposit
was made after the final order was passed by the Rent
Control Authority.
9. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed
off.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Goutam Bhaduri) (Radhakishan Agrawal)
Judge Judge
Jyoti
