1 2025:CGHC:7534-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 688 of 2022 Bhuneshwar Shrivas S/o Birbal Shrivas, aged about 48 Years R/o Gaushalapara, Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus Kimti Goyal D/o Late Kishanlal Goyal R/o Near Ramnivas Talkies Raigarh Tehsil and District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Shri Amit Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : None {Hon’ble (Smt.) Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput} (Order on Board dated 12/02/2025) This petition has been filed against the order dated 19.10.2022 passed by Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, CG (Annexure P-1) in Appeal No. 26- A/2022 by which the appeal filed against the order dated 04.04.2022 passed by Rent Controller, Raigarh in Case No. 08/A-90(7) year 2015-16, has been dismissed. 2. Facts in short: The petitioner/tenant herein owned and possessed a house in Raigarh City constructed in 1632 sq. ft. at plot No. 146, Nazul Sheet No. 44. In one of the shops obtained by the respondent/landlord in partition mobile shop is being run, and a Hair Dressor shop of the petitioner/tenant in the other on rent. The petitioner/tenant is in need of the rented shop for the business of his family members. The respondent/land lord in violation of the conditions of the rent agreement has neither paid the rent of Rs. 1,500/- per month after 31.12.2009 nor obtained the receipt thereof but contiuously carrying on the business in the rented shop. As the respondent/land lord was in bona fide need of the said rented shop, he issued a notice to the petitioner/tenant through an advocate on 10.11.2014 for handing over the vacant possession to him and also for making payment of the arrears of rent, but even then neither did he hand over the vacant possession nor did he pay the arrears of rent. Thereupon, the respondent/landlord filed an application under Section 9, 10 and the schedule 2 02 of section 12 (2) of Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (for short “Act of 2011”) for handing over the vacant possession of the rented shop and for making payment of arrears of rent. 3. The petitioner/tenant by filing the reply to the application moved by the respondent/landlord denied the averments made therein. It was pleaded that as the rented shop was the jont property of the co-sharers of the respondent/landlord, his sole ownership thereon remains un-established. It is further pleaded that despite the Court order dated 23.12.2015, the respondent/landlord has not arrayed the co-sharers as party. It is pleaded that on account of not getting vacated the rented shop by the father of the respondent/landlord and other co-sharers since 1964, the OK Hair Saloon business is being carried on by the petitioner/tenant by paying the rent regularly. It is further pleaded that the respondent/landlord is not in bona fide need of the rented shop. It is pleaded that the petitioner/tenant personally tried to give the rent of Rs. 1,500/- to the respondent/landlord for the month of January, 2010 but he refused to accept the same. Thereafter, the rent was sent by money order but it also was refused by the respondent-landlord, and ultimately it was deposited in the Court through challan. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the respective parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues:- (i) Whether applicant is the owner of disputed building/shop, and whether it is in his share on partition? (ii) Whether there is the relationship of land lord and tenant between the applicant and the non-applicant and whether any rent deed has been executed? (iii) Whether the applicant has received the monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- and whether it is being paid regularly, and since when the non-applicant has not paid the rent of the disputed shoip? (iv) Whether the non applicant took any action after the applicant refused to accept the monthly rent? (v) Whether the applicant is eligible for depositing the rent, and whether he is competent to get the vacant possession of the disputed house/shop? 5. Both the parties led their evidence to establish their case. Rent Controller vide its order dated 04.04.2022 allowed the application of respondent/landlord and directed that the petitioner/tenant be evicted from the disputed shop and its vacant 3 possession be handed over to the respondent/land lord within 15 days and the arrears of rent falling due upto the date of vacation, be also paid. 6. Challenging the said order dated 04.04.2022 the petitioner/tenant preferred the appeal under Section 13 of the Act of 2011 before the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) which after hearing the parties dismissed the same by the order under challenge in this petition dated 19.10.2022. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings recorded by the Rent Controller as also that of the Tribunal are perverse and contrary to law. He submits that despite the fact that there was no arrears of rent as duly proved by the petitioner/tenant, the order of eviction pased by the Rent Controller and then confirmed by the Tribunal is bad in law. He submits that both the Courts below have not considered the documents on record in its proper perspective and therefore the findings of both the courts below are liable to be set aside. 8. Heard counsel for the petitioner/tenant and perused the material on record. 9. During argument, counsel for the petitioner admitted that vacant possession of the disputed shop has already been handed over to the respondent/landlord. 10. Issue No. 1 framed by the Rent Controller is with regard to ownership of the suit shop falling in his share on partition. Considering the oral and documentary evidence learned Rent Controller gave a categorical finding that it is recorded in the joint ownership of the applicant and the co-sharers and as during trial no objection was raised by the co-sharers, this issue has been decided in affirmative in favour of the respondent/land lord. Issue No.2 about the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent, on the basis of rent receipt issued by the father of the respondent/landlord, has also been decided in affirmative. Issue No. 3 with regard to regular payment of Rs. 1,500/- by petitioner/tenant as monthly rent has also been decided in favour of the respondent/landlord. Issue No. 4 with regard to any action taken by the petitioner/tenant against the respondent/landlord for his refusal to accept rent, is not necessary to be adjudicated upon. It has however been decided in favour of the petitioner/tenant. Issue No.5 is with regard to the entitlement of the respondent/land lord to get the delivery of vacant possession of the suit shop. It was decided that being landlord the respondent is entitled to receive rent and also for the delivery of vacant possession. 11. As already stated, the Rent Controller by its order dated 04.04.2022 directed the petitioner/tenant to pay the arrears of rent to the respondent/land lord and also hand over the possession of the disputed shop to him within 15 days therefrom. In 4 appeal also, the order of the Rent Controller has been confirmed. While passing the order impugned, It has been held by learned Tribunal that the disputed shop is in the joint ownership but under the oral partition it fell in the share of respondent/land lord and also considering the fact that the rent receipts were given by him. 12. The finding of fact recorded by the Rent Controller as also by the Tribunal being based on the proper appreciation of the material available on record, do not appear to be at fault making this Court exercise its supervisory jursidcition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. Petition thus lacks merit and is dismissed as such. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Jyotishi