Ramneesh Kaushal vs Smt. Champa Devi
2023 Latest Caselaw 339 Chatt

                                       1
                                                                WP227 No. 271 of 2022
                                   Ramneesh Kaushal & anr. Vs. Smt. Champa Devi & anr.
                                                                             NAFR
              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                           WP227 No. 271 of 2022
   1. Ramneesh Kaushal S/o Shri N.C. Kaushal Aged About 37 Years

   2. Manish Kaushal S/o Shri N.C. Kaushal Aged About 40 Years

     Both R/o MIG 127, Sada Colony, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Nagar,
     Jamnipali, District Korba (C.G.)

                                                                 ---- Petitioners

                                Versus

   1. Smt. Champa Devi Wd/o Late Devandas Aged About 57 Years

   2. Rajesh Kumar Das S/o Late Devandas Aged About 39 Years

     Both R/o Village Ayodhhyapuri, Jamnipali, Tahsil- Katghora,
     District-Korba (C.G.)

                                                              ---- Respondents


     For Petitioners   :     Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate

     Respondent        :     Mr. Rajesh Kumar Das, In Person


                  Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

               Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi

                           Judgment on Board


Per Goutam Bhaduri, J.

17/01/2023

Heard.

1. The present petition is against the judgment dated 22.04.2022

passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, wherein the

WP227 No. 271 of 2022 Ramneesh Kaushal & anr. Vs. Smt. Champa Devi & anr. appellate Tribunal has reversed the order passed by the Rent

Control Authority, Katghora, District Korba and has granted a

decree for possession.

2. The petitioner, who is a tenant, has challenged the said order on

the ground that different proceedings were pending in between the

parties including the proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C.

on an earlier point of time.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in a

proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. the categorical

finding was arrived at by the concerned authority that the property

on which the possession is sought for is described as 'Bade Jhaad

ka Jungle', therefore, the property for which the ejectment is

sought for do not belong to the respondent. He would further

submit that the Rent Control Authority has taken into account

these facts and since the ownership do not belong to the

respondent, the Rent Control Tribunal dismissed the petition filed

for ejectment. He would further submit that learned Tribunal

ignoring such finding has passed an order of ejectment, which is

contrary to the law and the effect of the order would be that the

respondent would step into the shoes of ownership though the

ownership belongs to the State. He would further submit that his

suit for permanent injunction is still pending for the reason that an

agreement was entered into the parties for purchase of the suit

WP227 No. 271 of 2022 Ramneesh Kaushal & anr. Vs. Smt. Champa Devi & anr. property on 19.10.2012 and an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was paid,

therefore, in these background of facts, the finding arrived at by

the Rent Control Tribunal is completely perverse and is liable to

be set aside.

4. Per contra, respondents, who are present in person, would submit

that the order of the Rent Control Tribunal is well merited which

do not call for any interference by this Court.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and

perused the documents.

6. After going through the bunch of the bulk of the papers, it shows

that the parties are litigating for quite a long time. The Rent

Control Authority order dated 16.04.2019 (Annexure P-2) on the

document filed on behalf of the parties came to a conclusion that

the petitioner being a tenant entered into an agreement initially on

01.07.2007 for 11 months thereafter on 01.06.2008 and lastly on

01.01.2012. On the basis of such agreement, which is not

disputed by the parties, the Rent Control Tribunal gave a finding

that the relation in between the petitioner and the respondent is

that of landlord and tenant. Learned Rent Control Authority

further came to a finding that on the basis of the document filed it

was clear that the shop situated at village Ayodhyapuri, Ward

No.46 Shop No.22 is owned by the respondent, wherein the

WP227 No. 271 of 2022 Ramneesh Kaushal & anr. Vs. Smt. Champa Devi & anr. petitioner is a tenant. The order would further show that learned

Rent Control Authority further quoted a repealed Section 8 of the

C.G. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as

'the Act, 1961') and held that in a proceeding under Section 145

of the Cr.P.C. on the basis of Panchnama report since the subject

land was shown as 'Bade Jhaad Ka Jungle' as such the ownership

cannot be attached to the respondent as a landlord and non-suited

the respondent. The order of the Rent Control Authority prima

facie is completely perverse and misconceived for the reason that

C.G. Rent Control Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act,

2011') was already promulgated which had replaced the earlier

Act, 1961, then while deciding a petition under the Act, 2011 there

was no necessity for the Rent Controller to refer to a repealed act

and it would be a completely misconceived action along with the

fact lack of application of mind.

7. Now coming back to the further action while evaluating the order

of the Rent Control Tribunal, it would be apt to refer the definition

of accommodation, landlord and tenant which is defined under

Sections 2 (1), 2 (5) & 2 (14) of the Act, 2011 and for sake of

brevity the same are reproduced herein below:-

2 (1) "Accommodation" means any building or part of a building, whether residential or non-residential, leased out by the landlord to the tenant and includes open space, staircase, grounds, garden, garage and all facilities and amenities forming part of the agreement

WP227 No. 271 of 2022 Ramneesh Kaushal & anr. Vs. Smt. Champa Devi & anr. between them of any land which is not being used for agricultural purposes;

2 (5) "Landlord" means a person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive, the rent of any accommodation, whether on his own account or on account of or on behalf of or for the benefit of any other person or as a trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person or who would so receive the rent or to be entitled to receive the rent, if the accommodations were let to a tenant;

2 (14) "Tenant" means-

(i) the person by whom or on whose account or behalf rent is, or but for, a contract express or implied, would be payable for any accommodation to his landlord including the person who is continuing its possession after the termination of his tenancy otherwise than by an order or decree for eviction passed under the provisions of this Act; and

(ii) in the event of death of the person referred to in sub- clause (i)-

(a) in case of accommodation let out for residential purposes, his surviving spouse, son, daughter, mother and father who had been ordinarily residing with him in such accommodation as member of his family up to his death;

(b) in case of accommodation let out for commercial or business purposes, his surviving spouse, son, daughter, mother and father who had been ordinarily carrying on business with him in such accommodation as member of his family up to his death.

8. The order of the Rent Control Tribunal would show that it

affirmed the finding of fact that the certain shops including the

subject shop was constructed over the Abadi land and, therefore,

would not be within the ambit of Section 3 of the Act, 2011.

Reading of Section 3 (1) & (2) of the Act, 2011 it shows that it

WP227 No. 271 of 2022 Ramneesh Kaushal & anr. Vs. Smt. Champa Devi & anr. exempts the accommodation which is owned by department of

Government or any other building or a category of building

specifically exempted in public interest by the Government

through notification. The subject premise being a shop and the

petitioner who admitted to have entered into the possession by

virtue of agreement which was renewed from time to time would

lead to draw an inference that the accommodation means building

or part of building whether residential or non-residential which is

leased out by landlord. Consequently, the superstructure which

stands on the land would be within the definition of

accommodation.

9. Since the finding of both the Rent Control Authority and the Rent

Control Tribunal show that the tenancy agreement exists and the

rent was being paid, in a result, reading it with definition of

landlord, which includes the person, who for the time being is

receiving or is entitled to receive, the rent of any accommodation,

whether on his own account or on account of or on behalf of or for

the benefit of any other person, the respondent would step into the

shoes of "landlord" as defined under the Act of 2011 coupled with

the fact that the petitioner shall also step into the shoes of tenant

for the reason that tenant includes the person by whom or on

whose account or behalf rent is paid. For purpose of adjudication

of an application under the Act, 2011 landlord is not synonym to

WP227 No. 271 of 2022 Ramneesh Kaushal & anr. Vs. Smt. Champa Devi & anr. the ownership except for payment & receipt of rent.

10. The submission of the petitioner that since the other suit is

pending for permanent injunction in respect of the same suit

property may not be a valid defence which can be considered qua

the act of 2011 to nullify the effect and operation of the Act, 2011

which operates in a different field and with different objective.

The petitioner's contention that a sale agreement was entered into

in between the parties, if is accepted, which is said to be of the

year 2012, enforcement of such relief may have a different field,

which cannot take into eclipse the proceeding under the Act, 2011

commenced at the instance of landlord, who receives the rent.

Likewise with the finding of the SDO under Section 145 of the

Cr.P.C., the object and purpose of the Act, 2011 cannot be shelved

which has a different field of operation.

11. In a result, we do not find an merit in this petition.

Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

                 Sd/-                                                       Sd/-

       (Goutam Bhaduri)                                      (N.K. Chandravanshi)
             Judge                                                    Judge
Ashu