Page No.1 of 5 IN MAC-5114-2025 2025:CGHC:49116-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5114 of 2025 Lalit Agrawal S/o Dinanath Agrawal Aged About 47 Years R/o Purana Sarkanda, Lodhipara, Bilaspur Tehsil, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus Smt. Anguri Bai (Dead) W/o Om Prakash And Late Om Prakash Agrawal (Dead) Shri Hemant Agrawal Aged About 47 Years, S/o Late Om Prakash Agrawal R/o Sarkanda, Lodhipara, Bilaspur Tehsil, District- Bilaspur, (C.G.) Purana ... Respondent [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshmukh, Advocate Respondents : None. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 25.09.2025 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 02.07.2025, passed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur (for short the “Tribunal”), whereby his appeal has been dismissed and the order dt. 16.07.2024, passed by the Rent Controller, Bilaspur, directing eviction of the suit premises to the petitioner herein alongwith arrears of rent SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 5 IN MAC-5114-2025 has been affirmed. 2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop: 2.1 Late Anguri Bai was the original Landlady of the suit accommodation bearing area 13x10, situated at Old Sarkanda, Lodhipara, Bilaspur (CG), which she let out to the petitioner for Rs.2100/- per month. It is the case of the respondent-Landlady that the petitioner was served with a legal notice on 25.01.2021 for vacating the suit premises within a period of 06 months and, thereafter, she filed an application for eviction before the learned Rent Controller, Bilaspur on 11.08.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner/tenant filed his reply and admitted the tenancy, however, averred that the respondent/Landlady is also having other accommodation in her possession which can be used for her son. Meanwhile, during the pendency of the application for eviction, Landlady- Anguri Bai died, leading to substitution of her husband- Omprakash Agrawal and son- Hemant Agrawal being her legal representative. 2.2 The learned Rent Controller, Bilaspur vide order dated 16.07.2024, allowed the application for eviction filed by the respondent/landlady by holding that the petitioner is tenant of the Landlady- Anguri Bai for the suit premises on a monthly rent of Rs.2100/- and 06 months’ notice has also been served by the landlady to the petitioner/tenant for vacating the suit premises, as provided under Section 12(2) read with sub-para (h) of Sr. No.11 appended with Page No.3 of 5 IN MAC-5114-2025 Schedule 2 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (for short the “Act of 2011”), therefore, the respondent/Landlady is entitled for grant of eviction of the suit premises. Further, the learned Rent Controller, Raipur has also recorded a finding that merely because the respondent- Landlady has some other accommodation in her possession, it cannot be a ground to reject her application for eviction of the suit premises, in view of the provision contained under the Act of 2011. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/tenant filed an appeal before the learned Tribunal, which stood dismissed vide impugned order dt. 02.07.2025. Against which, this writ petition has been preferred. 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 by recording findings which are perverse and contrary to the record. He also submits that though the learned Rent Controller, Raipur has recorded finding that the respondent-Landlady has some other accommodation in her possession which will fulfill the bonafide need of her son, yet allowed the application for eviction, which is impermissible and bad in law. Therefore, the present writ petition be allowed by setting aside both the order passed by the authorities below. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, considered his rival submission made herein above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. At the very outset, it would be appropriate to notice sub-para (h) Page No.4 of 5 IN MAC-5114-2025 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) 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).” 6. A careful perusal of the above-quoted provision would show that on issuance and receipt of 06 months notice in writing, there is no obligation on the part of the landlord to assign any reason, but the only condition that the accommodation will not be leased out at a higher rent for atleast 12 months thereafter. In the present case, both the authorities below have concurrently recorded a finding that the petitioner/tenant was served with a legal notice by the respondent/landlady for vacating the suit premises on 25.01.2021 and, when he failed to vacate the same, the application for eviction was filed by the respondent-landlady before the learned Rent Controller on 11.08.2021. As such, 06 months’ notice has clearly been served on the petitioner/tenant and, therefore, in light of sub-para (h) of Sr. No.11 appended with Schedule 2 under Section 12(2) of the of the Act of 2011, Page No.5 of 5 IN MAC-5114-2025 both the authorities below have not committed any error in granting order of eviction in favour of the respondent-Landlady. Furthermore, under the Act of 2011 there is no provision that mere availability of any other accommodation with the Landlady will dis-entitle her for grant of order of eviction, which is in contrast with the provision of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (Repealed Act). Even otherwise, in the present case, during the pendency of the application of eviction before the learned Rent Controller, the original Landlady, namely, Smt. Anguri Bai died and, thereafter, her husband namely, Hemant Agrawal also died. 7. In that view of the matter, 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. 8. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. It deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in limine without notice to the other side. 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