(WP227 No.438/2024) 2026:CGHC:16757-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 438 of 2024 1. Sawarnlata, D/o Shant (Sant) Kumar Markus, aged about 61 years 2. Ku. Shashilata Markus, D/o Shant (Sant) Kumar Markus, aged about 59 years All R/o Tarbahar, Near Ghodadana School, Vyapar Vihar Road, Thana Tarbahar, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Applicants) ... Petitioners versus 1. Ashok Anand, S/o C. Anand Kumar Appa, R/o Bhartiya Nagar, Ahead of Cemetery, Near Kirana Store, Street No.L-02, Thana Civil Line, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Non-applicant) 2. Nishi Masih, D/o Shant (Sant) Kumar Markus, R/o Tarbahar, Near Ghodadana School, Vyapar Vihar Road, Thana Tarbahar, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Applicant No.1) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. M.L. Kaushik, Advocate. Division Bench: - Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, JJ. Order On Board (10/04/2026) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2026.04.13 14:08:03 +0530 (WP227 No.438/2024) 1. The petitioners herein/landlords have preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India calling in question legality, validity and correctness of order dated 15-2-2024 passed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur in Appeal No.39A/2023 by which the said Tribunal has affirmed the order dated 12-4-2023 passed by the Rent Controller, Bilaspur in Case No.6/A-90(7)/2019-20 rejecting the application filed by the applicants i.e. respondent No.2 herein and the petitioners herein under Section 12 of the Rent Control Act, 2011 (for short, ‘the Act’) finding no merit. 2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop: - 3. The suit accommodation being Khasra No.685/6, Sheet No.26, Block No.1, Plot No.47, area 1118 sq.ft., was purchased by Smt. Rechal Mantero from one Smt. Jeenat Bano by registered sale deed and her name was recorded in the revenue records. She was an issue-less widow woman who died on 18-3-2009 at CIMS, Bilaspur. Thereafter, the present petitioners and respondent No.2 herein i.e. the applicants got their names mutated in the revenue records on 1-3- 2018 and thereafter, on 12-9-2019, legal notice was served to respondent No.1 which he replied on 19-9-2019 and thereafter, on 13-11-2019, application under Section 12 of the Act for eviction was filed against respondent No.1 stating inter alia that they have become landlords after the death of Smt. Rechal Mantero and even after the service of notice, respondent No.1 has not vacated the suit (WP227 No.438/2024) accommodation and the suit accommodation is required bona fidely for their personal use. 4. Respondent No.1 herein filed his reply stating inter alia that the applicants i.e. the petitioners herein and respondent No.2 herein are not landlords and he and co-occupant in other writ petition Gautam Pandey are maintaining the suit accommodation and as such, they are continuing in possession after the death of Smt. Rechal Mantero, and relationship of landlord and tenant is not there between the applicants and the non-applicant and three months notice in writing has not been given to him, therefore, the application deserves to be rejected. 5. The Rent Controller by its order dated 12-4-2023 rejected the application holding that the applicants are not owners and relationship of landlord and tenant is not established between the applicants and the non-applicant and even service of three months notice as required under S.No.11(g) of Schedule 2 enacted under Section 12(2) of the Act has not been served upon respondent No.1 herein, therefore, the applicants are not entitled for the order of eviction, which the applicants have questioned by filing appeal before the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal and which the Tribunal has dismissed affirmed the order of the Rent Controller. Feeling aggrieved against the order of the Tribunal, the petitioners herein have filed the instant writ petition before this Court. 6. Mr. Anand Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners herein, would submit that both the authorities have (WP227 No.438/2024) concurrently erred in holding that the applicants are not owners and relationship of landlord and tenant is not established between the applicants and the non-applicant, and valid notice has not been served upon respondent No.1 herein, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sheela and others v. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash1 to buttress his submission. 7. Mr. M.L. Kaushik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 herein/non-applicant, would support the impugned orders and oppose the writ petition. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 9. The word “landlord” has been defined in Section 2(5) of the Act. It 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”. 10. Admittedly, the suit accommodation was held by Smt. Rechal Mantero and only after her death, the applicants have got their names mutated in the revenue records. However, no documents establishing that they are landlords of the suit accommodation have 1 AIR 2002 SC 1264 (WP227 No.438/2024) been filed by the applicants demonstrating the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, including the agreement. Even witness Ku. Shashilata Markus – applicant No.3 has admitted in para 18 of her statement that the non-applicant has never paid rent to her sister Nishi Masih – applicant No.1. 11. The Rent Controller after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record held that there is no documentary and oral evidence on record to hold that the relationship of landlord and tenant is established between the applicants and the non-applicant and the applicants have failed to establish that they are landlords of the suit accommodation. Furthermore, under S.No.11(g) of Schedule 2 enacted under Section 12(2) of the Act, three months notice is required to be served to the tenant in writing, if the accommodation is required for own occupation and/or occupation by any member of the family, however, in this case, notice for eviction was admittedly sent to respondent No.1 herein on 12-9-2019 vide Ex.P-9, which was replied by respondent No.1 on 19-9-2019 and the application for eviction was filed on 13-11-2019 without completing the period of three months. As such, the service of notice of three months to the tenant is not established. Thus, the petitioners are not able to establish that they are landlords of the suit accommodation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and three months notice has not been served upon the non-applicant under S.No.11(g) of Schedule 2 enacted under Section 12(2) of the Act. Furthermore, the relationship of landlord and tenant is not established between the (WP227 No.438/2024) applicants and the non-applicant. In that view of the matter, the two authorities have concurrently held so and therefore the finding recorded by the two authorities holding that the applicants are not entitled for eviction is correct finding of fact based on the evidence available on record and the finding so recorded is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. We do not find any merit in this writ petition, it deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE JUDGE Soma