Wali Mohammad vs Suresh Kumar Rohda
2022 Latest Caselaw 6039 Chatt

                                                                      NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                           WP227 No. 508 of 2022

    Wali Mohammad, S/o Shri Abdul Karim, aged about 84 Years, R/o
     Laxminarayan Mandir Road, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh,
     Chhattisgarh.

                                                               ---- Petitioner

                                  Versus

   1. Suresh Kumar Rohda, S/o Shri Ghanshyam Das Rohda, aged about
      40 Years,

   2. Gaurav Kukreja, S/o Shri Kishore Kukreja, aged about 33 Years,

      Both are R/o Panchavati Nagar, Boierdadar, Tahsil and District
      Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

                                                           ---- Respondents



For Petitioner          Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate.

                  Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri &

                 Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

                           Judgment on Board


Per Goutam Bhaduri, J.

27/09/2022

1. Heard.

2. The present petition is against the order dated 12.05.2022 passed in

Misc. Civil Appeal No.41/2021 by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control

Tribunal, Raipur, C.G. wherein the order passed by the Rent

Controlling Authority on 17.09.2021 has been affirmed.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed an eviction

petition under Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (in short "the Act,

2011") before the Rent Controlling Authority claiming themselves to be the landlord. The respondents herein filed an application under Order

XI Rule 12 of CPC and sought for the tenancy agreement in between

them.

4. The learned Tribunal dismissed the application with a finding that the

petitioner herein is a tenant since the respondents have purchased the

property from the erstwhile landlord with whom the tenancy existed of

petitioner. Having challenged the same before the Rent Control

Tribunal, the same was dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the finding

recorded by the learned Tribunal that the petitioner is the tenant would

be to the prejudice of the petitioner as on date he has not filed the

written statement. Therefore, the said finding given by the Rent

Control Authority would be bad in law.

6. We have heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

orders of the Rent Control Tribunal and the Rent Control Authority.

7. Perusal of the facts would show that the respondents claiming

themselves to be the landlord who are entitled to receive the land as

per Section 2 (5) of the Act, 2011 whereas the petitioner herein denies

the tenancy that he is a tenant and sought for production of a tenancy

agreement with the respondents.

8. Reading of the orders would show that the written statement has not

been filed by the petitioner/tenant. This Court in the matter of

Shrawan Kumar Saraf vs. Ravikant Mishra and others (WPC

No.650 of 2020) decided on 18.07.2022 has held that Section 4 would

not create a bar for the landlord to pursue the proceeding under the

Act, 2011. Further more, the application under Order XI Rule 12 was moved by the petitioner for production of the tenancy agreement and

the written statement has not yet been filed. Filing of the application

under Order XI Rule 12 is therefore would be misconceived as the

object of Order XI Rule 12 is to elicit admission from the opposite

party that may obviate the necessity to produce lengthy evidence to

expedite early disposal. For discovery, it is sufficient that documents

can throw some light on the matter in controversy. At this stage, since

the written statement has not been filed and issues are not framed the

controversy of like nature cannot be created by only filing the

application under Order XI Rule 12. The respondent would be required

to file his written statement which is governed under Order 8 of CPC.

Consequently, the application filed for production of document without

filing the written statement is effect less effort, which is only to protract

the trial.

9. The petitioner may file the written statement raising all the averments.

The finding given by the learned Rent Control Tribunal about the

status of the petitioner that he is a tenant shall not be construed as a

res judicata in subsequent proceeding before the Rent Control

Tribunal while adjudication.

10. Resultantly, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is

hereby dismissed.

                       -Sd/-                             -Sd/-
                  (Goutam Bhaduri)               (Radhakishan Agrawal)
                    Judge                              Judge




Akhilesh