1 WPC No. 2052 of 2024 2025:CGHC:45271-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2052 of 2024  Rajesh Goyal S/o Jaynaran Goyal, Aged About 58 Years, Gujrati Colony, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus  Sumanlata Gajendra, aged about 66 years, H/o Sv. Sundarlal Gajendra, Badhena Ward, Raipur Road, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner :- Mr. Harsh Wardhan, Advocate. For Respondent :- None. Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board (01.09.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J 1. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the writ petitioner herein/tenant has preferred this writ petition calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order dated ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.09.06 16:02:46 +0530 2 WPC No. 2052 of 2024 23.01.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, affirming order dated 08.06.2023 passed by the Rent Controller, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, granting an application for eviction of the petitioner herein from the suit premises. 2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on factual backdrop:- (i) The suit accommodation was let out to the petitioner/tenant by the respondent’s husband Sunderlal Gajendra for non-residential purpose / for opening of tractor showroom on payment of monthly rent of ₹1,800/- for 11 months and for the security, amount of ₹2,25,000/- was deposited by the petitioner/tenant. (ii) As per plaint, the case of respondent/landlady is that the suit accommodation is required bonafidely by her for the purpose of opening of restaurant and even the tenant / petitioner is not paying the rent since March, 2022, though the legal notice has been served upon him on 12.02.2022 leading to filing of application for eviction. (iii) The petitioner/tenant filed his reply denying all the allegation stating inter-alia that he is ready and willing to deposit the balance of arrears of rent and he is also ready and 3 WPC No. 2052 of 2024 willing to make repairs in the suit accommodation, as such, the application deserves to be rejected. (iv) However, the Rent Controller vide its order dated 08.06.2023 granted application along with arrears of rent of 14 months and made consequential direction for payment of earnest money subject to condition laid down in the order. (v) Against the said order of the Rent Controller, the petitioner/tenant had preferred the appeal before the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal. The Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal concurred with the finding of the Rent Controller and rejected the appeal holding that suit accommodation required bonafidely by the respondent- landlady for opening restaurant, which remained uncontroverted, leading to filing of the present writ petition. 3. Mr. Harsh Wardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the Rent Controller did not frame any issue and did not record any specific finding that the suit accommodation is required bonafidely by the respondent- landlady and, as such, the order passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal deserves to be set aside. 4 WPC No. 2052 of 2024 4. None for the respondent-landlady, though served. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, considered his submissions and gone through the records precisely. 6. The relationship between the tenant/petitioner herein and the landlady/respondent herein is not in dispute as the respondent’s husband Sunderlal Gajendra had let out the suit accommodation to the petitioner vide agreement dated 09.01.2003 for non-residential purpose/opening showroom on monthly rent of ₹1,800/- for the period of 11 months. It is the case of the landlady/respondent that the suit accommodation is required bonafidely for opening of the restaurant. 7. In the facts of the present case, at this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Serial No. 11(g) of Schedule 2 enacted under Section 12(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (for brevity “Act of 2011”) which states as under:- SCHEDULE 2 [See Section 12(2) of the Act] Landlord’s Rights available under the Act S.No. Rights 11. Right to seek from the Rent Controller eviction of the tenant on the following grounds:- (a) to (f) xxx xxx xxx 5 WPC No. 2052 of 2024 (g) On 3 months notice to the tenant in writing, if the accommodation is required for own occupation and / or occupation by any member of the family including spouse, parent(s), son(s), daughter, daughter(s)-in-law, son(s)-in law. 8. Admittedly, it is the case of landlady that the suit accommodation is required for opening of restaurant i.e. for non-residential purpose and for which 3 months notice to the tenant has been served. In the instant case, it is apparent from the records that notice dated 12.02.2022 has been served for 3 months to the tenant and thereafter, the application for eviction was filed on 12.09.2022 i.e. after expiry of 3 months. The respondent/landlady in her application for eviction has clearly stated that the suit accommodation is required for opening restaurant and she has no other accommodation in her possession for opening the restaurant which seems to be her bonafide need. True it is that the Rent Controller did not frame any issue, but the Rent Controller has considered the bonafide need of the landlady/respondent herein enumerated in Serial No. 11(g) of Schedule 2 enacted under Section 12(2) of the Act of 2011, as 3 months notice to the tenant in writing has been served. As such, the application for eviction has rightly been granted by 6 WPC No. 2052 of 2024 the Rent Controller in light of Serial No. 11(g) of Schedule 2 enacted under Section 12(2) of the Act of 2011. 9. For the reasons mentioned herein-above, the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal affirming the order of the Rent Controller is hereby reaffirmed and, consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge Ankit