Page No.1 of 6 IN WPC-1266-2025 2025:CGHC:50306-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1266 of 2025 Sapan Choudhary S/o Late Neeraj Choudhary Aged About 65 Years Caste Bramhin R/o Ward No. 7 Behind Ramnaresh Patel House, Purani Basti, Manendragarh, Distt. Manendragarh, Chirmiri- Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus Dr. Devdas Rai S/o Late Bhuvan Mohanram Aged About 75 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Jhagrakhand Road, Manendragarh, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Respondent [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate Respondent : Mr. AN Bhakta and Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocates ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 09.10.2025 Sanjay K. Agrawal, J 1. This writ petition filed by the petitioner/tenant under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned order dated 12.02.2025, passed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur (for short the “Tribunal”), whereby his appeal has been SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 6 IN WPC-1266-2025 dismissed and order dt. 07.10.2024, passed by the Rent Controller, Manendragrah, directing eviction of the suit premises to the petitioner herein alongwith arrears of rent has been affirmed. 2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop: 2.1 The respondent-Landlord filed an application for eviction under Section 12(2) read with sub-paras (a) & proviso to (h) of Sr. No.11 appended with Schedule 2 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (for short the “Act of 2011”) on the grounds that: (i) the petitioner-Tenant is an habitual defaulter of rent; (ii) the respondent- Landlord is a senior citizen aged about more than 65 years and he requires the suit premises for his own bonafide use and (iii) the respondent-Landlord firstly served the petitioner-Tenant with a legal notice dt. 22.09.2022 to vacate the suit premises, which was duly replied by the petitioner- Tenant vide letter dt. 27.09.2022 and, only thereafter, filed application for eviction before the Rent Controller on 04.11.2022. However, the petitioner-Tenant replied the said application, inter-alia, stating that he entered into an agreement for sale with the respondent-Landlord, but depsite repeated request, sale-deed has not been executed and he is not the tenant of the respondent and, as such, the respondent’s application for eviction deserves to be rejected. 2.2. The learned Rent Controller vide its order dt. 07.10.2024, Page No.3 of 6 IN WPC-1266-2025 allowed the application of the respondent-landlord for eviction and held that the relationship between the parties to be that of landlord and tenant is duly established, the petitioner-Tenant is at arrears of rent for a period of around 02 year for a sum of Rs.2,97,000/- and the respondent-Landlord being a senior citizen has served legal notice of one month on the petitioner-Tenant for vacation of the suit premises before filing the application for eviction. Aggrieved, the petitioner- Tenant filed an appeal before the learned Tribunal, which also stood dismissed vide impugned order dt. 12.02.2025. Against which, this writ petition has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the authorities below are absolutely unjustified in granting order of eviction in favour of the respondent by recording findings which are perverse and contrary to the record. He also submits that relationship between the petitioner and the respondent to be that of tenant and landlord is not established and even the grounds enumerated under sub-paras (a) & proviso to (h) of Sr. No.11 appended with Schedule 2 read with Section 12(2) of the Act of 2011 are also not established in the present case. Therefore, the present writ petition be allowed by setting aside both the order passed by the authorities below. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would support the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of this petition. Page No.4 of 6 IN WPC-1266-2025 5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, considered his rival submission made herein above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. At the very outset, it would be appropriate to notice sub-paras (a) & (h) of Sr. No.11 appended with Schedule 2 under Section 12(2) of the of the Act of 2011, which reads as under: “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. (b) to (g) xxxxx (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 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).” 7. A careful perusal of the above-quoted provisions would show that a landlord of special category, including senior citizen over the age of 65 years, is entitled for an order of eviction by serving 01 month’s notice in writing and there is no obligation on the part of the said landlord to assign any reason, but the only condition that the accommodation will not be leased out at a higher rent for atleast Page No.5 of 6 IN WPC-1266-2025 12 months thereafter. In the present case, admittedly, the respondent-Landlord is a senior citizen aged about more than 65 years and both the authorities below have concurrently recorded a finding that the petitioner/tenant was served with a legal notice by the respondent/Landlord for vacating the suit premises on 22.09.2022 and, when he failed to vacate the same, the application for eviction was filed by the respondent-landlord before the learned Rent Controller on 04.11.2022. As such, 01 month’s clear notice has been served on the petitioner/tenant and, therefore, in light of proviso to sub-para (h) of Sr. No.11 appended with Schedule 2 under Section 12(2) of the of the Act of 2011, both the authorities below have not committed any error in granting order of eviction in favour of the respondent-Landlord. Furthermore, both the authorities below have also recorded concurrent finding that respondent-Landlord has given the suit premises to the petitioner-Tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.9,000/- in June, 2019 and, thereafter, the petitioner-Tenant is at arrears of rent for period of 02 years for a sum of Rs.2,97,000/- and, thus, in light of sub-para (a) of Sr. No.11 appended with Schedule 2 under Section 12(2) of the of the Act of 2011, both the authorities below have further not committed any error in granting order of eviction in favour of the respondent-Landlord. Even otherwise, both the authorities below have also rejected the plea of the petitioner- Tenant that an agreement for sale has been entered between the parties and, despite repeated request the sale-deed has not been Page No.6 of 6 IN WPC-1266-2025 executed by the respondent with regard to the suit premises, as there is no material available on record to substantiate the said fact. 8. In that view of the matter, since relationship between the parties to be that of landlord and tenant is duly established and grounds enumerated under sub-paras (a) & proviso to (h) of Sr. No.11 appended with Schedule 2 read with Section 12(2) of the Act of 2011 are also made out in the present case, therefore, the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Tribunal are absolutely justified in granting order of eviction in favour of the respondent, as the said concurrent findings by the two authorities below are neither perverse nor contrary to the record. We hereby affirmed the said findings. 9. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. It deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, in light of the provision contained under sub-para (h) of Sr. No.11 appended with Schedule 2 under Section 12(2) of the of the Act of 2011, it is directed that the respondent-Landlord will not lease out the suit accommodation at a higher rent for atleast 12 months from the date of getting possession of the same. Sd/- sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge s@if