Chattisgarh High Court
Praveen Kumar Jain vs Hari Lal Yadav on 31 January, 2023
1
WP227 No. 645 of 2022
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WP227 No. 645 of 2022
Praveen Kumar Jain S/o Late Shri Kastur Chand Jain Aged
About 55 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Manendragarh, Tahsil
Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner
Versus
Hari Lal Yadav S/o Late Shri Ramdhari Yadav Aged About 54
Years R/o Near Bus Stand, Kali Mandir Road, Manendragarh,
Tahsil Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For Petitioner :- Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate
For Respondent :- Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri
Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi
Order On Board
Per Goutam Bhaduri, J.
31/1/2023
1. Heard.
2. By way of instant petition, the order dated 06.5.2022 passed by
the Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur is under challenge whereby
the Tribunal has affirmed the order passed by the Rent Control
Authority, Manendragarh on 08.2.2021.
3. The present petition is by the landlord against the dismissal of
application for eviction against the respondent / tenant.
4. The brief facts of this case are that the petitioner Praveen
WP227 No. 645 of 2022
Kumar Jain had filed an eviction petition against respondent Hari
Lal Yadav stating that father of Hari Lal Yadav was the tenant of
the subject suit premises and was carrying on a business of
Hotel. After death of Ramdhari Yadav, the father of respondent,
the respondent became the tenant and for last two year, the
premises was placed under a lock. It was further stated that
respondent has not paid the rent from 30.12.2000. The
petitioner, landlord further pleaded that a notice dated 03.2.2016
was served to the tenant under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control
Act, 2011 (for short 'the Act, 2011') claiming vacant possession
of the subject suit premises, but, instead of vacating the said
premises, it is stated that the tenant/ respondent raised the plea
of adverse possession and claimed to have become the owner.
Consequently, on 28.3.2018, an application was preferred by the
petitioner before the Rent Control Authority, Manendragarh
claiming vacant possession of premises along with arrears of
rent.
5. The respondent / tenant filed his reply and stated that his father
namely Ramdhari Yadav was the tenant of the suit premises and
after his death the landlord and tenant relation in between the
parties came to an end. It was further stated that after the year
2000, the relation between the parties as a landlord and tenant
never subsisted and no rent was paid or claimed for the last 18
years and has become owner of premises, therefore, the
petitioner is not entitled to receive any rent and claimed for
dismissal of the petition.
WP227 No. 645 of 2022
6. Ms. Priyanka Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that both the orders of the Rent Control Authority and the
Rent Control Tribunal are misconceived and she referred to the
affidavit and admission to submit that the tenancy was admitted
and as per Section 12(4) (ii)(b) of the Act, 2011, the respondent
having stepped into the shoes of his father would be a tenant as
per the definition of the Act, 2011. She would further submit that
though the adverse possession plea was raised, but, nothing is
on record to show that such claim was slated anywhere so as to
fortify the same by way of tax receipt to claim the ownership.
She would further submit that though the tenancy was denied
but the rent receipt was produced vide Ex. D1 which in turn
would show the relation of landlord and tenant was admitted.
Consequently, the finding arrived at by both the Courts below is
completely misconceived and liable to be set-aside along with
the arrears of rent to which the petitioner is entitled.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit
that the finding arrived at by both the Court below are well
merited. He would submit that the petitioner though claimed
himself to be a landlord did not produce any document to show
that the ownership vested with them at any point of time. He
would further submit that not a single rent receipt after death of
Ramdhari Yadav has been placed on record to show the
landlord and tenant relation. He would submit that when the
relation of ownership and the tenancy has not been established,
the operation of the Act, 2011 cannot be set into motion thereby
WP227 No. 645 of 2022
the judgment and the order of the Rent Control Authority and the
Rent Control Tribunal do not call for any interference.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and
perused the record.
9. The petitioner had filed an application seeking eviction after
issuance of notice (Ex. P1) on 03.2.2016 which was replied vide
Ex. P2 on 05.3.2016. Perusal of Ex. P1, the notice would show
that the tenancy was terminated on 01.8.2016 and six months
time was given to vacate the suit premises along with arrears of
rent and the rent was said to be of Rs.300/- per month and in
the notice an arrears of Rs. 54000/- was claimed.
10. Perusal of contents of Ex. P1, the notice would show that it was
issued in accordance with Section 12(2) Schedule 2 serial No.
11 (a) and (h) of the Act, 2011. For sake of ready reference, the
said Sections are produced hereunder:-
"11.Right to seek from the Rent Controller eviction of the tenant
on the following grounds:
(a) If the tenant is a habitual defaulter in payment of rent
and / or other dues.
XXX XXX XXX
XXX XXX 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
WP227 No. 645 of 2022
categories of landlords and / or their spouse desiring 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)."
11. In reply to the notice (Ex.P1) by way of Ex. P2, the respondent
admitted the fact that till year 2000 his father was the tenant.
Reply further purports that since after the year 2000 no amount
by way of rent was paid and he (respondent) has become the
owner by way of adverse possession.
12. The suit premises was not vacated after the statutory notice and
the application for ejectment was filed. Before the Rent Control
Authority, the respondent admitted the fact that father of
respondent namely Late Ramdhari Yadav was the tenant and
after his death the son Hari Lal Yadav, the respondent is not a
tenant as tenancy came to an end after death of his father in the
year 1999.
13. The Act, 2011 defines the words landlord and tenant. Section 2
sub-Section 5 of the Act, 2011 defines the word 'landlord' which
reads as under:-
" "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
WP227 No. 645 of 2022
accommodations were let to a tenant."
14. Likewise, the word 'tenant' is defined under Section 2 sub-
section 14 of the Act, 2011 which reads as under:-
" "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."
15.Reading of the aforesaid provisions would show that the word
'tenant' includes a person to say that accommodation when let
out for commercial or business purposes, his surviving spouse,
son etc, who carries on the business in such accommodation
would be a tenant and the landlord means a person who
WP227 No. 645 of 2022
receives or is entitled to receive the rent. The said definitions
when are translated into the pleading made by the respondent it
would amount to envelope the respondent within the definition of
tenant inasmuch as the respondent admitted the fact that his
father Ramdhari Yadav was the initial tenant and after his death
he is carrying on his business on the said premises since the
year 2000. Therefore, there is no ambiguity nor any cloud is
cast over the status of the respondent to be the tenant within the
definition as laid down by the Act, 2011.
16.Further reading the statement of Hari Lal Yadav, the respondent,
he admits the fact that his father has paid the rent to Praveen
Kumar Jain, the petitioner till the year 2000. Further statement
would show that father died in the year 1999 and during the
evidence, document Ex. D1 was produced to show that its a rent
receipt which purports that Praveen Kumar Jain, as a landlord
has received the rent from Hari Lal Yadav of Rs.5400/- on
25.7.2000. At para 10 of the cross-examination of respondent,
he admits the fact the said receipt (Ex. D1) was produced by
him. Landlord has produced another copy of receipt vide Ex. P4
(c) to show the tender of monthly rent of Rs.300/- from Hari Lal
Yadav. The question which looms large that when the
respondent claims that he was not a tenant and became the
owner and after death of his father he did not pay the rent, how
he came into possession of Ex. D1?. The very fact of holding
the document Ex. D1, i.e., the rent receipt would show that he
has paid the rent and accepted the petitioner to be the landlord
WP227 No. 645 of 2022
of the suit premises.
17.The respondent further has raised the claim of adverse
possession on the ground that after death of his father in the
year 1999, no rent was paid after the year 2000 and the
ejectment suit was filed in the year 2018. There is no document
on record to show that the subject premises was recorded in the
name of respondent to claim the ownership, asserted by way of
tax receipt or any other similar document.
18.Such permissive possession of like nature to turn into adverse
must be established by cogent and convincing evidence to show
hostile animus and possession adverse to the knowledge of real
owner. The possession for howsoever length of time cannot be
turned into ownership on the basis of adverse unless the same
fact is affirmatively proved. There is nothing on record to
appreciate that respondent has taken any steps to show that
possession is adverse.
19.The Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 presupposes that the
limitation starts only if one claims the adverse possession
affirmatively from a particular date so as to show that there is
exclusive or implied denial of title of the true owner, therefore,
the person who bases his title on adverse possession must
show, by clear and unequivocal evidence, that the possession
was hostile to the real owner and it amounted to the denial of his
title to the property claimed.
20.The perusal of the records of the learned Rent Control Authority
WP227 No. 645 of 2022
would show that after service of notice in terms of Schedule 2 of
Section 12 of the Act, 2011, the premises was not vacated. In
the statement of the petitioner/landlord he has claimed the
arrears along with prayer to get the vacant premises. In the
cross-examination, nothing has come on rebuttal which can
attribute the non-compliance of service of notice as the service
of notice and the reply have already been proved by Ex.P1 and
Ex.P2 respectively.
21.Consequently, we are of the view that the orders of the Rent
Control Authority and Rent Control Tribunal are liable to be set-
aside. Accordingly, we allow this petition and direct the
respondent to vacate the premises within a further period of two
months. The petition was filed on 28.3.2018 and as per the
Article 52 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the petitioner would only
be entitled for three years of rent, when it has became due.
Meaning thereby, the rent he would be entitled for from
28.3.2015 till the premises is vacated at the rate of Rs.300/- per
month.
22.Accordingly, the petition is allowed to the above extent.
SD/- SD/-
(Goutam Bhaduri) (N.K. Chandravanshi)
Judge Judge
Ayushi
WP227 No. 645 of 2022
Head Note
WP227 No. 645 of 2022
When surviving son or spouse carries on business, on
death of original tenant he would be deemed to be a tenant
under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011.
ewy fdjk;snkj dh e`R;q ij] tc mRrjthoh iq= ;k [email protected] O;olk; dk
lapkyu dj jgs gSa rks mUgsa NRrhlx<+ HkkM+k fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 2011 ds
rgr fdjk;snkj le>k tkosxkA
