Ashwani Chotiya vs Sandeep Kumar Dewangan
2022 Latest Caselaw 6103 Chatt

                                                        WP227 No. 546 of 2022


                                 1

                                                                     AFR

       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                       WP227 No. 546 of 2022

   • Ashwani Chotiya S/o Raj Kumar Chotiya Aged About 33 Years
     Propriter Chanchal Dairy And Bakeri, Opposite Sunder Nagar
     School, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

                                                       ---- Petitioner

                              Versus

   • Sandeep Kumar Dewangan S/o Shri Mohanlal Dewangan Aged
     About 32 Years R/o Opposite Sunder Nagar School, Raipur,
     Chhattisgarh.

                                                     ---- Respondent



     For Petitioner     :    Shri Amit Sharma, Advocate

     For Respondent     :    Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate


              Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri &

              Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

                        Judgment on Board

Per Goutam Bhaduri, J.

29/09/2022

Heard.

1. The instant petition is against the order dated 04.08.2022 passed

by the Rent Control Tribunal whereby the order dated 30.01.2021

passed by the learned Rent Control Authority whereby an order of

eviction was passed, was affirmed.

WP227 No. 546 of 2022

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the proper

opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner and the

right to cross-examination of the witnesses, which were produced

by the tenant/petitioner was closed. He would further submit that

because of the Covid-19 pandemic, the witnesses or the counsel

did not appear. Consequently, the Court should have given the

proper & fair opportunity of hearing and the rules of natural

justice should have been followed. Consequently for this

illegality the order of the Rent Control Authority is required to be

set aside. He would further submit that the Tribunal too failed to

take into account that the Rent Control Authority has failed to

give proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, thereby the

wrong finding of dismissal is recorded.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the proper

opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner/tenant, but

despite that he failed to avail opportunity and deliberately avoided

to keep his witnesses present. He would submit that the events

would be evident from order-sheets that the proper opportunity

was given to the tenant many a times but because of fault of

tenant he himself had invited the situation. It is stated this

petition before this Court is misconceived and wrong facts have

been stated, therefore, the same is required to be dismissed.

WP227 No. 546 of 2022

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents.

5. As per the averments, the respondent filed a petition before the

Rent Control Authority under the C.G. Rent Control Act, 2011

(hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2011) that the petitioner was

inducted as a tenant on monthly rent of Rs.3100/- and from July,

2010 he has not paid the rent. Therefore, initially a notice was

served in the year 2015 and six months time was given to make

good the payment and to vacate the premises as per the provisions

of the Act, 2011. However, the tenant/petitioner neither paid the

rent nor vacated the premises. Eventually an application for

vacating the suit premises was filed. Learned Rent Control

Authority after hearing, passed an order for eviction of the tenant.

The said order having been challenged before the Rent Control

Tribunal under the Act, 2011, the same was affirmed.

6. The main thrust of argument before this Court by the petitioner is

that no proper opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner

tenant and it was stated that because of the Covid -19 Pandemic

the counsel could not appear. Therefore, on this ground he may

be given the proper opportunity of hearing. In order to ascertain

these facts we went through the order-sheets of Rent Control

Authority.

WP227 No. 546 of 2022

7. The order-sheets would show that as per Section 12 (2) of the Act,

2011 the application was filed before the Rent Control Authority,

Raipur on 03.10.2016. After 7 hearing the notice was served to

the petitioner on 19.04.2017. Thereafter, after three hearings on

24.06.2017 the written statement was filed. Then the case was

adjourned from time to time for framing of issues and as many as

six dates passed and issues were framed on 06.09.2017.

Subsequently, list of witnesses was given and after 5 dates on

13.11.2017 affidavit was filed by the landlord under Order 18

Rule 4 CPC and another application was filed under Order 6 Rule

17 CPC. The said application was not pressed at any time and

remained undecided, and the case was adjourned from time to

time.

8. On 11.01.2019 the copy of the affidavit as filed by the witnesses

of the landlord, was again served to the petitioner/tenant.

Thereafter, the case was adjourned for different dates and on

16.06.2019 the date was sought for by tenant to cross-examine the

witness though the witnesses were present. Again one date

passed and on 15.07.2019, the landlord/respondent was again

present along with his Advocate but non-applicant was absent and

since last chance was given on the earlier date, the right to cross-

examine of tenant was closed and the next date was given on WP227 No. 546 of 2022

31.07.2019. On 31.07.2019 an application was again filed by the

tenant/petitioner to give a right to cross-examine on the health

ground, the same was allowed and again the right to cross-

examination was given to tenant on 08.08.2019. On 08.08.2019

few of the witnesses were cross-examined and thereafter the case

was fixed for non-applicant evidence on 03.09.2019. Few of the

witnesses of landlord were examined on 26.09.2019 and

thereafter 2-3 dates passed, and again the case was fixed for

cross-examination of the non-applicant witnesses.

9. The order-sheets show that on 22.11.2019 an affidavit was filed

by the tenant/petitioner under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC and the case

was thereafter fixed for cross-examination of witnesses.

Subsequent thereto 4 dates were given in between from

22.11.2019 to 25.02.2020 and because of the fact that the

witnesses on behalf of tenant were not appearing, their right to

lead evidence was closed. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed an

application to give him opportunity to get their witnesses cross-

examined, but the said application was dismissed on 07.03.2020

and the parties were directed to place their submission. The

order-sheets would show that on 16.03.2020, the parties were

present which bears the signature at the margin of the order-sheet

but subsequent to it on 25.11.2020, 16.12.2020 and thereafter on WP227 No. 546 of 2022

28.12.2020 no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner/tenant.

The tenant (NA) again appeared on 18.01.2021 and he was given

an opportunity to place his submission/written arguments, if so

advised, within three days but despite that nothing was done,

eventually the orders were passed by Rent Control Authority.

10.Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act, 2011 contemplates that all

proceedings before the Rent Controller would ordinarily conclude

within six months from the date of first appearance of the

respondent. In this case, the respondent appeared on 19.04.2017

and proceedings were concluded on 30.01.2021 after 4 years. The

conduct of the tenant/petitioner would show that initially when

the evidence by way of affidavit was filed on behalf of the

landlord under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC on 13.11.2017, on some

pretext or the other the cross-examination was avoided despite the

witnesses appeared. First time in the month of September, 2019

one of the witnesses was cross-examined by tenant (NA) and

interim applications were also filed. The petitioner tenant

therefore, resorted to protract the trial and harsh truth came to fore

of dates after dates. The tenant chose to remain in denial mode to

face the trial.

11. Therefore, for two years almost the proceedings were adjourned

''at the behest of the petitioner/tenant''. In the month of WP227 No. 546 of 2022

November, 2019 the tenant filed the list of witness subsequently,

the witnesses were not produced for cross-examination after their

statements were filed under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC. For

consecutive 5 dates despite the warning given by the Rent Control

Authority, the witnesses of tenant remained absent under these

circumstances right to cross-examination was closed. The

proceeding would show that on 15.07.2019 when initially right to

cross-examination of the landlord witnesses was closed, it was

reopened when an application was filed by the tenant. Therefore,

bias cannot be inferred.

12.The rules of natural justice are meant for the proper opportunity

of hearing to the parties. Such phraseology cannot be used to

protract the trial to read it in favour of one side of litigant.

Natural justice denotes the fair opportunity to both. The conduct

of the tenant/petitioner would show that he made deliberate

attempt to protract the trial and beyond all mandate of sub-section

(2) of Section 9 of the Act, 2011, to make pursuits of justice as

long and arduous battle for landlord as proceedings before RCA

continued for four years.

13.Under these, circumstances, taking into the nature and conduct of

the petitioner, we are unable to accept the contention of the

petitioner that no fair opportunity was granted during the trial and WP227 No. 546 of 2022

object of speedy trial was defeated.

14.In the circumstances of this case as perusal of the order sheet do

not inspire much confidence of speedy trial, therefore, to

accentuate the object of Section 9(2) of the Act, 2011 to avoid the

frequent adjournment, copy of this order may be circulated to the

Rent Control Authority and the Rent Control Tribunal to uphold

the object of the Act, 2011 and to avoid to project the State as an

adversarial litigant.

15.Accordingly, the petition being devoid of all merits is liable to be

and is hereby dismissed at the threshold.

           Sd/-                                                         Sd/--

       (Goutam Bhaduri)                                (Radhakishan Agrawal)
           Judge                                                  Judge
ashu
                                                       WP227 No. 546 of 2022




                     Head note

Attempt to protract the trial by tenant would be against the mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the C.G. Rent Control Act, 2011 and pursuits of justice cannot be made long and arduous battle for landlord.

fdjk;snkj }kjk fopkj.k dks yack [khapuk N-x- HkkM+k fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 2011 dh /kkjk 9 dh mi/kkjk (2) esa fn;s x, mica/kksa ds fo:) gS rFkk U;k; izkIr djus gsrq bls Hkou Lokeh ds fy, yach ,oa dfBu yM+kbZ ugh cuk;k tk ldrkA