1 2025:CGHC:49795-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition 227 No. 248 of 2025 Order reserved on 17/09/2025 Order delivered on 07/10/2025 Order uploaded on 07/10/2025 1 - Mahanti Shikshan Samiti / Miss Mahanti Education Society (Registration No. 73/45-56), Through President, Office Mahanti Higher Secondary School, (English Medium), Omnagar, Jarhabhatha, Bilaspur, C.G. And Mahanti Girls Higher Secondary School, Bhagdikar Compound, Ram Mandir Road, Tilaknagar, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, C.G. 2 - Mahanti Shikshan Samiti/miss Mahanti Society Through Office Education Secretary, Mahanti Higher Secondary School, Omnagar, Jarhabhatha, Bilaspur, C.G. And Mahanti Girls Higher Secondary School, Bhagdikar Compound, Ram Mandir Road, Tilaknagar, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, C.G. 3 - Pracharya Mahanti Girls Higher Secondary School, Bhagdikar Compound, Ram Mandir Road, HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.10.07 17:57:15 +0530 2 Tilaknagar, Tahsil And Dist. Bilaspur, C.G. … Petitioners versus 1 - Smt. Vasanti Vasudev Bhagdikar W/o Late Vasudev Narayan Bhagdikar Aged About 84 Years R/o C/o Late M.N. Bhagdikar Advocate, Bhagdikar Compound, Ram Mandir Road, Tilaknagar, Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Present Address 257, 2/15 Lain 3, Greenpark Society Aundh, P.O. Aundh, Distt. Pune (Maharashtra) 411007 2 - Shri Srikant Madhukar Bhagdikar S/o Late Madhukar Narayan Bhagdikar Aged About 69 Years Bhagdikar Compound, Ram Mandir Road, Tilaknagar, Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur C.G., Present Address 408 Shri Ganesh Apartment, Bhagwadhar Ambajhari Le-Out, North Road, Post, Shankarnagar, Distt. Nagpur (Maharashtra) ... Respondents Writ Petition 227 No. 434 of 2025 1 - Smt. Vasanti Vasudev Bhagdikar W/o Late Vasudev Narayan Bhagdikar Aged About 84 Years R/o C/o Late M.N. Bhagdikar Advocate, Bhagdikar Compound, Ram Mandir Road, Tilaknagar, Tahsil And Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.), Present Address 257, 2/15 Lain 3, Greenpark Society Aundh, P.O. Aundh, Distt. Pune (Maharashtra) 411007 3 2 - Shri Srikant Madhukar Bhagdikar S/o Late Madhukar Narayan Bhagdikar Aged About 63 Years Bhagdikar Compound, Ram Mandri Road, Tilaknagar, Tahsil And Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) Present Address 408 Shri Ganesh Apartment, Bhagwadhar Ambajhari Le-Out, North Road, Post, Shankarnagar, Distt.- Nagpur (Maharashtra) … Petitioners versus 1 - Mahanti Shikshan Samiti/miss Mahanti Education Society (Registration No. 73/45-46), Through President, Office Mahanti Higher Secondary School, (English Medium), Omnagar, Jarbhatha, Bilaspur, C.G. And Mahanti Girls Higher Secondary School, Bhagdikar Compound, Ram Mandir Road, Tilaknagar, Tahsil And Distt.- Bilaspur, C.G. 2 - Mahanti Shikshan Samiti/miss Mahanti Education Society Through Office Secretary, Mahanti Higher Secondary School, Omnagar, Jarhabhatha, Bilaspur, C.G. And Mahanti Girls Higher Secondary School, Bhagdikar Compound, Ram Mandir Road, Tilaknagar, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Pracharya, Mahanti Girls Higher Secondary School Bhagdikar Compound, Ram Mandir Road, Tilaknagar, Tahsil And Distt.- Bilaspur, C.G. ... Respondents 4 For Petitioners in WP227/248/2025 and respondents in WP227/434/2025 :- Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rohishek Singh, Mr. Rahul Ambast and Mr. Alok Rishi, Advocates For Respondents in WP227/248/2025 and petitioners in WP227/434/2025 :- Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anant Bajpai and Mr. Kabir Kalwani, Advocates DB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal C.A.V. Order Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Since common question of law and fact is involved in both of these writ petitions, therefore, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. In these writ petitions, one filed by tenant namely Mahanti Shikshan Samiti & Others and other filed by the landlords (Smt. Vasanti Vasudev Bhagdikar and Anr.) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge has been made to the order impugned dated 24/01/2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur whereby Appeal No. 5 19A/2024 (Mahanti Shikshan Samiti and Others v. Smt. Vasanti Vasudev Bhagdikar and Anr.) as well as Appeal No. 63A/2024 (Smt. Vasanti Vasudev Bhagdikar and Anr. v. Mahanti Shikshan Samiti and Others) have been dismissed finding no merit and the order dated 15/02/2024 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Rent Controller, Bilaspur for granting eviction and refusing claim for damages has been upheld. (Hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their status and ranking given before the Rent Controller) 3. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop :- 4. (I) Landlords/Applicants – Smt. Vasanti Vasudev Bhagdikar and Another/landlords filed an application before the Rent Controller, Bilaspur under Section 12(2) read with Schedule 2 Clause 11(h) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (for brevity, “the Act of 2011”) against the tenant/non-applicants i.e. Mahanti Shikshan Samiti seeking eviction and vacant possession of the suit accommodation situated at Sheet No. 12, Plot No. 32, Chatapara, District Bilaspur 6 admeasuring 25,175 sq. ft. and for payment of arrears of rent as well as damages stating inter alia that their ancestor Late Shri Madhukar Narayan Bhagdikar had lent some portion of the said premises to Late Smt. Kanaklata Mahanti on verbal tenancy agreement in the year 1945 which was used by the non-applicants - Mahanti Sikshan Samiti/Miss Mahanti Education Society for running a school and the rent was paid to him and a register was also maintained for that purpose having the signatures of the parties. Since, at the request of Late Shri Madhukar Narayan Bhagdikar, rent was not being enhanced and illegal construction was carried out by the non-applicants/tenants, legal notices were issued to them in the years 1997 and 2004 (Ex. P/3 and P/5) asking for vacant possession of the premises, however, neither reply was sent by the non-applicants nor the vacant possession of the premises was delivered. Thereafter, again on 19/08/2004 (Ex. P/6), a letter was sent to the non-applicants as well as the District Administration informing them about the dilapidated condition of the premises and asking them for eviction to which non-applicants had 7 filed reply and assured that a proposal for purchasing land at Omnagar, Jarhabhata has been made for setting up the school premises in near future and the suit accommodation would be vacated as soon as the school building is constructed therein. Thereafter, Shri Madhukar Bhagdikar left for a heavenly abode on 25/12/2004 pursuant to which rent was received by Smt. Madhvi Madhukar Bhagdikar and entries were made in the register as before. She also wrote a letter to the non-applicants protesting the illegal construction work being carried out in the premises and demanded vacant possession. At the executive committee meeting of the non- applicants on 28/05/2007, monthly rent was decided to be increased from Rs. 150/- to Rs. 500/-, however, due to ill health, Smt. Madhvi Madhukar Bhagdikar passed away on 10/05/2011 and taking this as an opportunity, the non- applicants further carried out illegal construction and also started depositing rent in the Citizen Cooperative Bank, Bilaspur on their own account instead of paying it to the landlords/applicants. 8 (ii) It is further case of the applicants that during the Covid-19 pandemic period, the non- applicants demolished the old building of the school premises and started the construction work arbitrarily without any permission and consequently, a legal eviction notice was sent by the applicants on 08/07/2020 (Ex. P/11) for stopping the construction work but it had no effect upon the non-applicants. A complaint was also made by the applicants to the District Collector, Bilaspur on 14/07/2020, who sent it to the Nazul Officer, in which after hearing both the parties, on 24/11/2020, the Nazul Officer accepted the ownership and title of the Bhagdikar family (applicants) and directed the non-applicants to stop the construction work. Even then the non-applicants did not stop the construction work and got it completed. It has also been stated by the applicants that the suit premises is required for the own use of applicant No. 1, being a widow and applicant No. 2, Mr. Shrikant Madhukar Bhagdikar, who has retired from service and are in need of suit accommodation. 9 (iii) The non-applicants i.e. Mahanti Shikshan Samiti/Miss Mahanti Education Society filed reply to the eviction application stating that they have been in possession of the suit premises prior to coming into force of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and denied the fact that they are tenants and also denied the title of the applicants over the suit premises. They have further stated that since the suit premises is on nazul land, there is a provision of ownership of the possession-holder and they have been in continuous possession of the suit premises for the last 76 years, the applicants do not have a right to file application for renewal of nazul patta in this regard. It has further been stated that the relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist anymore and therefore, they prayed for rejection of the eviction application filed by the applicants/landlords. (iv) The Rent Controller, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its order dated 25/02/2024 (Annexure P-4), allowed the application filed by the applicants/landlords holding that the suit 10 premises has been recorded in the names of the applicants herein in the revenue records and they are the legal owners and landlords of the suit accommodation and directed the non- applicants/tenants to vacate the suit accommodation along with payment of arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 18,000/- and further Rs. 500/- per month till handing over the vacant possession of the suit premises. (v) Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Controller, the non-applicants/tenants preferred an appeal under Section 13 of the Act of 2011 before the Chhattisgarh Rent Controlling Tribunal, Raipur bearing Appeal No. 19A/2024 and the applicants/landlords also preferred an appeal bearing Appeal No. 63A/2024 seeking compensation/damages ,however, the Tribunal dismissed both the appeals by impugned common order dated 24/01/2025 (Annexure P-1), finding no merit against which the instant writ petitions have been preferred by the applicants/landlords as well as the non- applicants/tenants. 11 5. Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned senior counsel appearing for the non-applicants/tenants in WP227 No. 248/2025, would make the following submissions :- (i) that, there is utter non-compliance of the provision contained under Section 4(1) and (2) of the Act of 2011. (ii) that, the relationship of landlord and tenant is not at all established between the parties from the oral and documentary evidence available on record and as such, the finding recorded by the Rent Controller, which has been affirmed by the Tribunal, is perverse and contrary to the evidence available on record. (iii) that, Schedule I enacted under Section 12(1) of the Act of 2011 which provides for tenants’ rights has not been complied with by the applicants/landlords. (iv) that, grant for eviction under Section 12(2) read with Schedule 2 Clause 11(h) of the Act of 2011 has not been established. (v) that, there is also non-compliance of Serial No. 3 contained in Schedule 3 which provides for landlord's obligation under the Act and, as 12 such, writ petition filed by the tenants be allowed and writ petition filed by the landlord be dismissed with cost(s). 6. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants/landlords in WP227 No.434/2025, would submit as under :- (i) the non-applicants/tenants have not specifically denied the averments made in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the application whereby it has been stated that they are the tenants of the applicants and in absence of specific denial, it be held that they have accepted the said fact of landlord and tenant relationship. In this regard, he would rely upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (Dead) through Legal Representatives v. Muddasani Sarojana1. (ii) the obligation as provided under Section 4(1) and (2) of the Act of 2011 is directory in nature as its non-compliance does not indicate any consequence qua seeking eviction in light of the decision rendered by this Court in the matter of Shrawan Kumar Saraf v. Ravikant Mishra2 1 (2016) 12 SCC 288 2 WPC No. 650 of 2020 decided on 18/07/20222 13 which has also been upheld by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 13789/2022 decided on 17/08/2022. (iii) In letter dated 24/11/2004 (Ex. P/10), the non-applicants/tenants, while addressing one of the applicants/landlords, have intimated about the maintenance of the suit accommodation that has to be carried out, which goes to show that the non-applicants are tenants and they have accepted that they are tenants. Furthermore, the Nazul Officer had also conducted an enquiry and after hearing both the parties, has held by order dated 26/08/2020 (Ex. P/17) that applicants are landlords whereas non-applicants are tenants of the suit accommodation. (iv) Similarly, in Ex. P/23 and P/24, which is a copy of income-expenditure statement of Mahanti Higher Secondary School, an entry of Rs. 6,000/- has been made towards payment of school rent. As such, it is duly established by the evidence available on record, that applicants are landlords and non-applicants are tenants, therefore, the writ petition filed by the tenant be dismissed and writ petition filed by the 14 landlord be allowed granting damages, which has been refused by both the Authorities. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein- above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, the following questions emanate for consideration in these writ petitions :- (i) Whether the finding recorded by the Rent Controller, that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the applicants and the non- applicants, respectively, is established, which has also been affirmed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, is perverse and contrary to the record and is liable to be set aside? (ii) Whether the ground of eviction under Section 12(2) read with Schedule 2 Clause 11(h) of the Act of 2011 which has been found established by the Rent Controller as well as the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal is perverse and is liable to be set aside. ? 15 (iii) Whether the arrears of rent granted by the two Authorities in favour of the applicants/landlords from three years prior to the filing of the application to the tune of Rs. 18,000/- and Rs. 500/- per month till the handing over of possession is perverse and whether the applicants/landlords are entitled for damages as well ? Answer to Question No. (i) :- 9. The suit accommodation is situated at Sheet No. 12, Plot No. 32, Chatapara, District Bilaspur (C.G.) admeasuring 25,175 sq. ft. for which lease has been extended by the competent authority in favour of the applicants/landlords upto 31/03/2027 (Ex. P/1) and the names of the applicants/landlords and their predecessors have duly been recorded in the revenue records (Ex. P/2). 10. It is the case of the applicants/landlords that in the year 1945, a part of the suit premises was rented out by late Shri Madhukar Narayan Bhagdikar to Late Smt. Kanaklata Mahanti on verbal tenancy for running a school which came to be known as Mahanti Sikshan Samiti/Miss 16 Mahanti Education Society and rent was being paid duly and a register was also maintained by the School showing payment of rent. It is further case of the applicants/landlords that illegal construction in the suit premises led to issuance of notices in the years 1997 and 2004 (Ex. P/3 and P/5, respectively) and after the death of Shri Madhukar Narayan Bhagdikar, rent was being paid to his wife Smt. Madhvi Madhukar Bhagdikar as before. 11. In their application under Section 12(2) read with Schedule 2 Clause 11(h) of the Act of 2011, the applicants/landlords have clearly pleaded in paragraph 2 that they are landlords and non- applicants are tenants, which has not been specifically denied/disputed by the non- applicants/tenants while filing reply. In the matter of Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (supra) the Supreme Court has clearly held that denial of fact in written statement has to be specific and denial of want of knowledge is no denial at all and has not even the effect of putting the fact in the issue. 17 12. In this regard, the notice dated 24/11/2004 (Ex. P/10) may be noticed herein which has been addressed by the non-applicants to Smt. Madhvi Bhagdikar in which it has been stated that the School has been running in the suit accommodation for the last 50-60 years and the applicants have not carried out any maintenancew work till date and the condition of school building has become dilapidated which has been taken consideration of by the Rent Controller to hold that it is in the capacity of the tenant that the non-applicants have written to the applicants burdening them with the responsibility if the maintenance work is not carried out in future and any untowards incident happens in the suit accommodation. 13. Moreover, the order dated 24/11/2020 (Ex. P/16) passed by the Nazul Officer has also been relied upon by the applicants/landlords in which inquiry has been conducted by the Revenue Inspector at the direction of the Nazul Officer wherein the non-applicants have clearly pleaded that earlier rent was being paid to the Bhagdikar family/applicants and now it is being deposited in the Bank, and as such, the Nazul 18 Officer has clearly recorded the finding that applicants are landlords of the suit premises. 14. Furthermore, Smt. S. Najaat Ali (DW-1) has clearly admitted in paragraph 12 of her statement that the order dated 24/11/2020 (Ex. P/16) passed by the Nazul Officer has not been questioned by the non-applicants in any proceeding before any higher authority and order dated 24.11.2020 holding relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties has become final and it has rightly been relied upon by the two authorities to hold that relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. Not only this, Ex. P/23 and P/24 may also be noticed herein which is a copy of the income-expenditure statement of the School in which an entry has been made with regard to expense of Rs. 6,000/- incurred on school rent, which has also been taken note of by the Rent Controller to hold that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the applicants and the non-applicants has duly been established and it has also been affirmed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal. 19 15. Lastly, the copy of resolution dated 26/05/2007 pursuant to which it was decided by the non- applicants that the rent of Rs. 150/- per month would be enhanced to Rs. 500/- per month was put to question before the Smt. S. Najaat Ali (DW- 1), who did not dispute the said document, however, on the objection raised by the counsel for the non-applicants, the said document could not be exhibited. As such, relying upon the order dated 24/11/2020 (Ex. P/16) passed by the Nazul Officer and a copy of the income- expenditure statement of the school (Ex. P/23 and P/24) as well as the resolution dated 26/05/2007 passed by the non-applicants and other material available on record, it is held that the Rent Controller has rightly reached to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant has duly been established between the applicants and the non-applicants and further it has rightly been affirmed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal and thus, in our considered opinion, the said finding recorded by the Rent Controller affirmed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal that relationsh of landlord and tenant is established between the 20 parties is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Answer to Question No. (ii) :- 16. Section 12(2) read with Schedule 2 Clause 11(h) of the Act of 2011 states as under :- “12. Rights and Obligations of Landlords and Tenants. - (1) XXX 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 : SCHEDULE 2 Landlord’s Rights available under the Act 1 to 10. xxx xxx xxx 11. Right to seek from the Rent Controller eviction of the tenant on the following grounds: (a) to (g) XXX XXX (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).” 21 17. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that proviso to clause 11(h) of Schedule 2 provides that in case of special categories of landlords or their spouse, which includes current or retired government servants, widows, armed forces personnels, physically or mentally handicapped persons or senior citizens aged more than 65 years, who want the accommodation back for their own use, only one month notice is required. 18. In the instant case, admittedly applicant No. 1 is a widow, aged about 84 years and applicant No. 2 is a retired servant, aged about 69 years, who retired from WCL, Nagpur on 31/05/2021, as such, they are landlord of special category. Admittedly and undisputedly, legal notice (Ex.P/11) was served by the applicants to the non-applicants on 08/07/2020 (Ex.P/12) and thereafter, application under Section 12(2) read with Schedule 2 Clause 11(h) of the Act of 2011 for eviction, arrears of rent and damages was filed by the applicants on 23/10/2021 i.e. after more than one year. Therefore, the ground of eviction under Section 12(2) read with Schedule 22 2 persist to Clause 11(h) of the Act of 2011 is duly made out – (1) as applicant No.1 is widow , aged about 80 years; (2) applicant No.2 is retired WCL servant as well as senior citizen aged about 69 years i.e. above the age of 65 years and more than one month legal notice has been served. Accordingly, both the authorities have rightly granted the application for eviction filed by the applicants/landlords under Section 12(2) read with Schedule 2 Clause 11(h) of the Act of 2011. 19. However, learned counsel for the non- applicants/tenants has raised a contention that Sections 4(1) and (2) of the Act of 2011 have not been complied with as there is no agreement in writing as per Sections 4(1) and (2) of the Act of 2011. Sections 4(1) & (2) of the Act of 2011 state as under:- “4. Tenancy Act – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Central Act 4 of 1882), no person shall, after the commencement of this Act, let or take on rent any accommodation except by an agreement in writing. (2) Where, in relation to a tenancy created before the commencement of this Act,- 23 (a) an agreement in writing was already entered into shall be filed before the Rent Controller. (b) no agreement in writing was entered into, the landlord and the tenant shall enter into an agreement in writing with regard to that tenancy and file the same before the Rent Controller; Provided that where the landlord and the tenant fail to present jointly a copy of tenancy agreement under clause (a) or fail to reach an agreement under clause (b) such landlord and the tenant shall separately file the particulars about such tenancy.” 20. In this regard, the decision rendered by this Court in the matter of Shrawan Kumar Saraf (supra) may be noticed herein profitably whereby this Court, considering the provisions contained in Section 4(1) of the Act of 2011, has clearly held that it is directory in nature as its non- compliance does not indicate any consequence qua seeking eviction and observed as under :- “18. The General rule of law is that where a general obligation is created by statute and statutory remedy is provided for violation, statutory remedy is mandatory. It further held that the scope and language of the statute and consideration of policy at times may, however, create exception showing that legislature did not intend a remedy (generality) to be exclusive. Words are the skin of the language. The language is the medium of expressing the intention and the object that particular provision or the Act seeks to achieve. No universal 24 principle of law could be laid in that behalf as to whether a particular provision or enactment shall be considered mandatory or directory. It is the duty of the Court to try to get at the real intention of the legislature by carefully analysing the whole scope of the statute or section or a phrase under consideration. In the context of the aforesaid principle, the language of Section 4 is examined, it do not create a duty for non-compliance. Therefore, it can very well be presumed that the obligation as has been provided under Section 4 of the Act of 2011 is directory in nature as non compliance of it do not indicate any consequence qua seeking eviction. 19. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that the rigor of Section 4 of the Act, 2011 would not create a bar for the landlord to pursue a petition for ejectment before the Rent Controller.” 21. The decision rendered by this Court in Shrawan Kumar Saraf (supra) was taken to the Supreme Court in SLP(c) No. 13789/2022 which was decided on 17/08/2022 and the SLP was dismissed. 22. The Supreme Court in the matter of Deepak Tandon & Anr. v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta 3 has held that concurrent findings recorded of the facts of two courts below are binding on the writ court and it is not open to interference in the writ jurisdiction by this Court. 3 (2019) 5 SCC 537 25 23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby conclude that the Rent Controller has rightly granted eviction in favour of the applicants/landlords under Section 12(2) read with Schedule 2 Clause 11(h) of the Act of 2011 and it has rightly been affirmed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal. Answer to Question No. (iii) :- 24. The Rent Controller, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, clearly reached to the conclusion that applicants/landlords are only entitled for arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 18,000/- and Rs. 500/- per month till the possession of the suit premises is handed over to them denying damages, which in our considered opinion, is just and proper and the applicants/landlords are not entitled for further damages as claimed by landlords/appellants. 25. In conclusion to the aforesaid legal discussion and analysis, we do not find any good ground in both the writ petitions warranting interference by this Court in the impugned order passed by 26 the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal affirming the order of the Rent Controller. 26. Accordingly, both the writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Harneet