Page No.1 of 4 IN WPC-3946-2025 2025:CGHC:47421-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3946 of 2025 Pramod @ Manoj Tiwari S/o Late M.L. Tiwari, Aged About 48 Years R/o Thakur Jugal Kishor Mandir Parisar Bada, Nayapara Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur C.G. --- Petitioner Versus Shri Thakur Jugal Kishore Mandir Trust Committee Sadar East Nayapara, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, C.G. Through V.P. Dubey Secretary , Shri Thakur Jugal Kishore Mandir Trust Committee, Sadar East Nayapara, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur C.G. --- Respondent [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, Advocate Respondents : Mr. Soumya Rai, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 16.09.2025 Sanjay K. Agrawal, J 1. This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned order dated 23.06.2025 (Annexure-P/01), passed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur (for short the “Tribunal”) in Appeal No.70-A/2024, whereby the order passed by SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 4 IN WPC-3946-2025 the Rent Controller, Raipur dt. 23.04.2024, directing eviction of the suit premises to the petitioner herein has been affirmed. 2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop: 2.1 The respondent- Landlord is a registered Trust, who filed an application for eviction under Section 12(2) read with sub-para (h) of Sr. No.11 appended with Schedule 2 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (for short the “Act of 2011”) stating inter alia that: petitioner herein (i.e. Pramod @ Manoj Tiwari) is their tenant for a monthly rent of Rs.100/-; since the condition of the building is dilapidated, the concerned Municipal Corporation has directed for vacation of the same otherwise same will be demolished in view of provisions contained under Sections 309/310 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956; the rent has not been paid by the petitioner/Tenant for 03 months; notice for eviction has also been served on the petitioner-Tenant on 16.09.2016, but despite that the suit premises has not been vacated. The appellant/tenant filed his reply disputing the averments made in the application for eviction by stating that the order of vacation/demolition has been passed by the concerned Municipal Corporation in collusion with the respondent-Trust and, as such, the application deserves to be rejected. 2.2 The learned Rent Controller after appreciating the oral and Page No.3 of 4 IN WPC-3946-2025 documentary evidence available on record allowed the application filed by the respondent/Trust holding inter alia that: the relationship between the respondent-Trust and the petitioner to be that of landlord and tenant is duly established; the tenancy of the suit premises is on a monthly rent of Rs.100/-; the building in question has become dilapidated and the tenant is also defaulter in making payment of rent. As such, the respondent-Trust is entitled for eviction of the suit premises. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the Rent Controller, the petitioner/Tenant preferred an appeal before the learned Tribunal, which stood rejected by the impugned order affirming the order of the learned rent Controller. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submits that both the authorities below are absolutely unjustified in granting order of eviction in favour of the respondent-Trust by recording findings which are perverse and contrary to the record. 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-Trust supported the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of this petition. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submission made herein above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. Page No.4 of 4 IN WPC-3946-2025 6. A careful perusal of the record would show that the Municipal Corporation, Raipur has issued notice (Ex.P/1C) to the respondent- Trust on 17.12.2014 stating therein that the house in question is in dilapidated condition and therefore it be vacated accordingly otherwise the same will be demolished in accordance with law. Pursuant to which, notice has been issued by the respondent-Trust to the petitioner vide Ex.P/2 and, thereafter, legal notice was also issued vide Ex.P/03 on 16.09.2016, which was received by the petitioner vide Ex.P/04. Thereafter, when the suit premises was not vacated by the petitioner, the respondent filed application for eviction on 01.07.2017. As such, the grounds/conditions enumerated under Section 12(2) read with sub-paras (a) & (h) of Sr.No.11 appended with Schedule 2 of the Act of 2011 are completely meted out in the present case and, therefore, the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Tribunal are absolutely justified in granting order of eviction in favour of the respondent-Trust, as the said concurrent findings are neither perverse nor contrary to the record. We hereby affirmed the said findings. 7. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. It deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost. Sd/- sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge s@if