Page No.1 of 13 IN WPC-2498-2022 2025:CGHC:38357-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2498 of 2024 Rajendra Prasad Tripathi S/o Late Hanuman Prasad Tripathi Aged About 72 Years R/o Kududand, Mangla Road, Near Shiv Chowk, Beside Om Kirana Stores, Kududand, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus Rajkumar Shukla S/o Late Jwala Prasad Shukla, Aged About 78 Years R/o Near Mahamaya Manidr Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Anand Mohan Pandey, Advocate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board (04.08.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J 1. This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against impugned order dated 23.04.2024 (Annexure-P/8), passed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur (for short the “Tribunal”), in Appeal No.72A/2023, by which the appeal filed by the landlord/respondent herein, challenging the order dated 29.09.2023 (Annexure-P/7), passed by the learned Rent SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 13 IN WPC-2498-2022 Controller, Bilaspur, has been allowed and the tenant/petitioner herein has been directed to vacate the suit premises within a period of 01 month. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that initially the respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as the “landlord”) preferred an application before the learned Rent Controller, Bilaspur on 22.11.2017 for obtaining vacant possession of the suit premises situated at Kududand-Mangla Road, Near Shiv Chowk, Kududand, which was given on rent to the petitioner herein (for short the “tenant”) in the month of March, 1990. The said tenancy was on monthly rent of Rs.1,200/- and the same was on the basis of an oral agreement between the parties. It has also been pleaded by the landlord in the plaint that firstly he served the tenant with a notice dated 06.04.2017 through registered post demanding the vacant possession of the suit premises, which was duly received by the tenant on 08.04.2017 by giving 06 months notice. However, despite passing of 06 months’ period, the tenant did not vacate the suit premises, which led to filing of suit before the learned Rent Controller. The tenant filed reply to the aforesaid suit. Thereafter, both the parties adduced their evidence and exhibited documents in support of their respective stands. The learned Rent Controller on 29.09.2023 after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, dismissed the suit filed by the landlord on the Page No.3 of 13 IN WPC-2498-2022 ground that the landlord failed to prove the factum of tenancy between the parties and that he also failed to establish his ownership over the suit premises. 3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid order of learned Rent Controller dated 29.09.2023, the landlord preferred an appeal before the learned Tribunal, which was registered as Appeal No.72-A/2023. The learned Tribunal vide impugned order dated 23.04.2024, allowed the appeal preferred by the landlord and set aside the order of learned Rent Controller dt. 29.09.2023 by holding that the learned Rent Controller failed to appreciate the evidence available on the record and that the learned Rent Controller has also erred in holding that the burden of proof was on the landlord only to prove his title over the suit premises, against which, the present writ petition has been filed by the tenant/petitioner herein. 4. Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned counsel appearing for the tenant would submit that the learned Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in allowing the appeal filed by the landlord by recording findings which are perverse and contrary to the record. He vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal committed grave error of law in holding that sufficient evidence was available on the record pertaining to the proof of title of the landlord, whereas it has clearly been observed by the learned Rent Controller that the landlord miserably failed to prove his ownership over the suit premises as Page No.4 of 13 IN WPC-2498-2022 well as the factum of tenancy. To bolster his submissions, learned counsel relied upon decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the matters of Biswanatha Agarwalla v. Sabitri Bera and others 1 ; Tribhuvan Shankar v. Amrutlal 2 ; Sheela and others v. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash 3 and Kasthuri Radhakrishnan and other v. Chinniyan and another 4 . As such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and present writ petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Per-contra, Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the landlord supported the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal and submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly allowed the appeal filed by the landlord, as the learned Rent Controller, was absolutely unjustified in dismissing the suit filed by the landlord for eviction. As such, there is no illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal and, therefore, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed with cost. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 7. In the case at hand, the respondent/landlord has filed a application for eviction under Section 12(2) read with Section 11(h) of Schedule 2 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (for short 1 (2009) 15 SCC 693 2 (2014) 2 SCC 788 3 (2002) 3 SCC 375 4 (2016) 3 SCC 296 Page No.5 of 13 IN WPC-2498-2022 the “Act of 2011”) after serving 06 months’ prior legal notice for vacating the suit premises to the petitioner/tenant. In reply to the said application, the tenant filed his reply denying relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties and specifically stated that the landlord has to establish his title over the suit premises. Thereafter, the learned Rent Controller upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, proceeded to reject the application filed by the landlord by holding that the landlord has failed to establish his title over the suit premises. However, in an appeal preferred by the landlord against the said order of learned Rent Controller, the learned Tribunal has allowed the same and directed the tenant to vacate the suit premises by holding that though the relationship between the parties to be that of landlord and tenant has been denied by the petitioner/tenant, but on the basis of the material available on record, the same is established and in an application filed under Section 12(2) of the Act of 2011, establishment of title over the suit premises is not required, against which, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner/tenant. 8. In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to notice the definitions of “landlord” and “tenant” provided under sub-sections (5) & (14) of Section 2 of the Act of 2011, which read as under: Page No.6 of 13 IN WPC-2498-2022 “2. Definitions.- (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; (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.” 9. Similarly, Section 12(2) of the Act of 2011 deals with the rights and obligation of landlords and tenants and it is stated therein that the rights of the landlord are provided according to Schedule 2 of the Act of 2011, whereby Section 11(h) deals with right to seek from the Page No.7 of 13 IN WPC-2498-2022 Rent Controller eviction of the tenant on certain grounds, which read as under: “12. Rights and Obligations of Landlords and Tenants. (1) xxx (2) Every landlord shall have rights according to Schedule 2. The Tribunal and Rent Controller shall act at all times to secure to the landlord these rights: Provided that- (a) In case of any clash of interests of the landlord and the tenant, and/or any point of doubt in respect of matters relating to rent, the benefit thereof shall be granted to the tenant. (b) In case of any clash of interests of the landlord and the tenant, and/or any point of doubt in respect of matters relating to returning possession of the accommodation to the tenant, benefit thereof shall be granted to the landlord. *** *** *** *** Schedule 2 1 to 10. XXX 11. Right to seek from the Rent Controller eviction of the tenant on the following grounds: (a) to (e) 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 65years).” Page No.8 of 13 IN WPC-2498-2022 10. A bare perusal of the above quoted provision would show that 06 month’s notice is required to be given to the tenant in writing by the Landlord, without any obligation to assign any reason, but in that case, the accommodation will not be leased out at a higher rent for atleast 12 months thereafter. 11. In the present case, the landlord while serving legal notice (Ex.P/2) dt. 06.04.2017 has given 06 months’ clear notice to vacate the suit premises, which was received by the tenant on 08.04.2017 and, thereafter, the landlord filed an application for eviction before the learned Rent Controller on 13.12.2017. However, before the learned Rent Controller, the tenant only took a plea that the respondent herein is not his landlord, as he did not setup his title over the suit premises by himself or by any other person. Even in his affidavit filed under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC, the petitioner/tenant did not took any specific stand that he himself is the owner of the suit premises or some other person is the owner and, only during the course of recording of his evidence, he took a plea that he is the owner of the suit premises. Since, the learned Rent Controller has rejected the application of the landlord and, thereafter, the learned Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the landlord against the said rejection order, it would be appropriate to consider the oral and documentary evidence available on record to find out as to whether the order of learned Tribunal is sustainable or Page No.9 of 13 IN WPC-2498-2022 perverse to the record ? 12. On behalf of landlord, Rajkumar Shukla himself has been examined as Witness No.01 and in his affidavit given under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC, he has clearly stated that the petitioner herein, namely, Rajendra Tripathi is his tenant and said tenancy was monthly on a rent of Rs.1,200/- via oral agreement between the parties. Rajkumar Shukla has thoroughly been cross-examined by the petitioner/tenant, but nothing could be extracted from him to hold that he is not his landlord and the petitioner is not his tenant and it has also been suggested on behalf of the tenant that in the suit accommodation water and electricity bills come in the name of the landlord and it is paid by the petitioner/tenant. Not only this, the landlord has also filed a copy of document (Ex.P/01), according to which, his name has been recorded in the revenue records to be the owner of land bearing Khasra Nos.132, 130/1 & 130/2, which he has purchased from one Jethamal and his name has been recorded by order of Superintendent of Land Records dt. 27.04.1970. Similarly, the respondent/landlord has also filed legal notice dt. 06.04.2017 as Ex.P/03, which has been served upon the petitioner/tenant and same has been received by the petitioner/tenant on 08.04.2017 vide Ex.P/04. Water Tax/bill of the suit premises has also been filed as Ex.P/5 & Ex.P/5C showing the name of the respondent/landlord to be the person paying the said bill. Page No.10 of 13 IN WPC-2498-2022 13. The respondent/Landlord has also examined his son- Chandramani Shukla as Witness No.02, who used to reside in the suit accommodation prior to the tenancy in question alongwith one- Basant Yadav and when Basant Yadav vacated the suit premises, it was given to the petitioner/tenant on rent and he has also been subjected to some length of cross-examination on behalf of the petitioner/tenant, but nothing has been extracted from him to hold that the respondent is not his landlord. 14. Thirdly, Basant Yadav has been examined as Witness No.03 on behalf of the respondent/landlord, who used to reside alongwith Chandramani Shukla (son of the landlord) in the suit accommodation and when son of the landlord- Chandramani Shukla vacated the suit premises and joined army services, then it was given to the petitioner/tenant. It has also been asked to him that on which date landlord- Rajkumar Shukla used to collect rent from the petitioner/tenant, Basant Yadav replied that Rajkumar Shukla used to collect rent thrice in an year. All these evidence goes to show that the petitioner/tenant has acknowledged the relationship of landlord and tenant and title over the suit accommodation, though in a suit for eviction, question of title is irrelevant and not required to be established. 15. On the other hand, on behalf of the petitioner, Rajendra Prasad Tripathi (tenant) himself has been examined and in his affidavit Page No.11 of 13 IN WPC-2498-2022 filed under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC he only asserted that he is not tenant of the respondent on the suit premises, but he did not setup any tenancy of any other person over the suit premises. In Para-5, he has clearly asserted that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and as he is not the tenant of respondent in the suit premises therefore he has not replied to the legal notice sent by the respondent-landlord. However, in the cross- examination, he has denied the fact that the suit accommodation is owned by him and he is residing in the suit accommodation during the lifetime of his father. He has also admitted the receipt of legal notice (Ex.P/03) and further stated that he did not reply to the same because he is owner of the suit accommodation. As such, the tenant has taken a u-turn by stating that he is the owner of the suit accommodation for the first time while giving his evidence, which he has not taken in his pleading. Further, the petitioner/tenant has filed documents (Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/7) with regard to land bearing Khasra No.132/1, 132/2, 132/3, 132/4 which go to show that land bearing Khasra No.132/1 is government land, 132/2 belongs to one Durganand Dubey, 132/3 Jhumkadas-Balkdas and 132/4 belongs to Narendra Prasad S/o Loknath Sahu, which are of no relevance qua dispute in question. Only documents which are of some relevance that have been filed by the petitioner/tenant are Ex.D/8 & Ex.D/9 showing the name of Dukhuram over the land bearing Khasra No.130/1. But it is well settled legal position that no evidence could Page No.12 of 13 IN WPC-2498-2022 be led beyond pleadings, as the petitioner/tenant has not pleaded that someone else is the owner of the suit accommodation. As such, the evidence led by the petitioner/tenant is of no use because he has not pleaded that any other person is the landlord of the suit premises. 16. As such, from the evidence available on record, particularly statements of witnesses on behalf of the respondent/landlord i.e. Witness No.1-Rajkumar Shukla, Witness No.2-Chandramani Shukla and Witness No.03-Basant Yadav and the documents (Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/3) would clearly go to show that the petitioner herein is tenant of the respondent herein and name of the respondent/landlord is also registered in the revenue records over the suit land, which he is said to have purchased from one Jethamal. Further, before filing suit, the respondent/landlord has served 06 month’s legal notice on the petitioner/tenant to vacate the suit premises, which was duly received by the petitioner/tenant vide Ex.P/04. Even otherwise, as per the statements of Witness No.2-Chandramani Shukla and Witness No.03-Basant Yadav prior to the tenancy of the suit premises with the petitioner/tenant, they used to reside therein and only when Chandramani Shukla joined army services and they both vacated the suit accommodation, the same was given to the petitioner/tenant on rental basis, which goes to show that the petitioner is the tenant of the suit premises and the respondent is Page No.13 of 13 IN WPC-2498-2022 the landlord and the respondent/landlord is entitled for order of eviction and the learned Tribunal has rightly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent/Landlord. As such, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in the matters of Biswanatha Agarwalla; Tribhuvan Shankar; Sheela and Kasthuri Radhakrishnan (supra) are clearly distinguishable under the facts and circumstances of the present case. 17. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal is absolutely justified in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent/landlord and directing the petitioner/tenant to vacate the suit premises vide impugned order dated 23.04.2024. We do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, this petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge s@if