Chattisgarh High Court
Rakesh Kumar Singh vs Rent Control Officer on 2 February, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 5610 of 2022
• Rakesh Kumar Singh S/o Late Keshari Singh Aged About 42
Years R/o In-Front Of Rajasthan Dharamshala, Raina Market,
Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Rent Control Officer Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh
2. Jaswant Kaur W/o Late Ranjeet Singh Aged About 69 Years R/o
Ward No. 16, Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh
3. Sub Divisional Officer Manendragarh, District Koriya
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri Ramsajiwan, Advocate
For State : Ms. Meena Shashtri, Addl.
A.G.
For Respondent No. 2 : Shri Vivek Bhakta,
Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri
Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi
Order on Board
Per Goutam Bhaduri, J.
02/02/2023
Heard.
1. The present petition is against the judgment of the Rent
Control Tribunal, Raipur dated 30.09.2022, whereby the Tribunal
has affirmed the order of eviction against the petitioner passed by
the Rent Control Authority, Manendragarh on 06.01.2021.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that initially
the notice was served to the petitioner/ tenant on 04.10.2017,
whereby from back date tenancy of the petitioner was terminated
and taking advantage of special category of the land-lord (widow)
as prescribed in the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011
(hereinafter referred as Act of 2011) the eviction petition was
filed under grounds enumerated in Schedule 2 of Section 12 (2),
claiming the accommodation would be required for own use. He
would further submit that the petition before the Rent Control
Authority was filed only for enhancement of rent as the rent was
Rs. 1331/- only and enhancement of Rs. 4,000/- was asked for.
He submits that such course of action to enhance rent would
negate the need for own use. It is further stated that similar
accommodation has been let out by the land-lord at a higher rent,
after filing of eviction petition and when application is filed the
same cannot be said to be for own use of land-lord. He further
submits that during the pendency of the litigation on different
dates i.e. 07.01.2019, 07.09.2020, 06.01.2023, 21.01.2023 and
lastly on 01.02.2023 total amount of Rs. 26,580/- has been paid
towards rent. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to
enhance the rent reasonably but it cannot be to the extent as
demanded. He further submits that since the demand of
enhancement was made at higher rate it was not acceded,
therefore, on false grounds petition has been preferred. He further
submits that application of like nature is required to be dismissed.
Consequently, he prays that both the orders passed by the learned
Rent Control Authority and the Rent Control Tribunal are liable to
be set aside.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/ land-lord
would submit that after termination of the tenancy in the year
2017, the petition was filed in accordance with the Act of 2011.
He further submits that affidavit of the land-lord will go to show
that the premises is required for own use for different purposes
and despite notice as per Schedule 2 of Section 12(2) of the Act of
2011, the tenant failed to vacate the premises and pay the arrears
of rent. He further submits that during the pendency of the
litigation, in the intervening period on different dates some
amount of arrears of rent have been paid in part to the tune of Rs.
26,580/-, however the arrears of rent was to the extent of 63
months. It is stated since the termination of tenancy is from 2017
till January, 2023 it comes to Rs. 83853/- @ Rs. 1331/- p.m. He
submits that the part of amount so paid may be deducted and for
the rest of amount the order may be passed for recovery of arrears.
He further submit that the both the Rent Control Authority and
Rent Control Tribunal has evaluated the facts and has passed the
order which is well merited and do not call for any interference by
this Court.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
records.
5. Perusal of records shows that the notice was served to the
petitioner by the respondent (land-lord) initially on 04.10.2017,
whereby the tenancy was terminated from 01.10.2017. The service
of notice and the reply to it are not in dispute and they have been
exhibited before the Rent Control Authority as Ex. P3 and P4. The
records of the Rent Control Authority would show subsequently
the petition was filed for ejectement on 15.01.2018. The
respondent/ land-lord admittedly to be a widow and of more than
65 years even at the time of service of notice. Consequently, as per
Schedule 2 Clause (11) (h) of Section 12 (2) the notice period
would be for 1 month asking to vacate the premises. The records
shows that the notice was served in accordance with Section 12
(2) Schedule 2 Clause 11 (a) and (h).
6. For sake of brevity Section 12 (2) Schedule 2 clause 11 (a)
and (h) are reproduced hereinbelow :-
11. XXXX
(a) If the tenant is a habitual defaulter in payment of
rent and/ or other dues.
(b) XXX
(c) XXX
(d) XXX
(e) XXX
(f) XXX
(g) 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 desireing
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.)
7. Now turning back to the evidence led by the parties, the land-
lord/ widow had stated that the suit premises is required for her
own use. In her cross examination, suggestion was given that she
wanted to enhance the rent which was denied instead she
maintained her stand that she want to get the premises vacated to
raise construction and further to settle it in family. According to
the statement, the tenant had not paid any rent till she (land-lord)
was examined before the Court on 22.07.2019 after termination of
tenancy by notice.
8. The petitioner/ tenant in his evidence stated that son of land-
lord asked for enhancement of the rent but admitted the fact that
Jaswant Kaur (land-lord) never asked to enhance the rent. He
further in his cross examination admitted that after the litigation
started, only on two occasions, payment of rent by installment was
made, however, for last 2 years he has not paid the rent. Though
the petitioner/ tenant tried to establish the fact that he tendered the
rent which was refused by the land-lord but except the oral
evidence nothing is on record to substantiate the same about the
mode of tender of rent.
9. Clause 11 (a) of Schedule 2 of Section 12 (2) purports that
right to seek eviction can be based when the tenant is a habitual
defaulter in payment of rent. "Habitual defaulter" is defined under
Section 2 (4) of the Act of 2011 which purports that if the tenant
who fails in a period of 12 months on three or more occasion to
pay the rent in full he would be habitual defaulter. Consequently
with the admission of the tenant that for last 2 years except on two
occasion he has not paid the rent, he would be enveloped within
the definition of habitual defaulter.
10. Since the special category as per the Act of 2011 includes the
widow and the notice period has been reduced in proviso to clause
(h) to one month, the facts shows that petitioner was served with a
notice by Ex. P-1 in the month of Oct 2017 which was replied and
thereafter the ejectment petition was filed on 15.01.2018 before
the Rent Control Authority. The petition before the Rent Control
Authority was on two fold for arrears of rent for default for
payment and the accommodation was required by the land-lord/
widow for her own use. The Statement of the witnesses and
analysis of the document shows that both the grounds stand
fulfilled on which the learned Rent Control Authority and Rent
Control Tribunal has passed the order of ejectment. Therefore, we
decline to interfere in such order of ejectment. However, since it
has been stated that during the pendency of the litigation out of
arrears of rent of Rs. 83,853/- which was due up till January, 2023
Rs. 26580/- has only been paid, the respondent would be entitled
to recover the rest of the amount of arrears along with the future
damages if any till the premises is vacated in accordance with the
Act of 2011.
11. The petition, therefore, has no merit and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Goutam Bhaduri) (N.K. Chandravanshi )
Judge Judge
Jyoti
