1 2025:CGHC:38993 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 12 of 2010 • Satish Sethi S/o Late M.S. Sethi, Age About 51 Years, R/o Ward No. 6, Manendragarh, Tahsil Manendragarh, District -Korea (C.G.) ... Appellant versus • Smt. Mahendra Kaur, W/o Shri Dharamveer Chawla, R/o Ward No. 6, Manendragarh, Tahsil Manendragarh, District -Korea (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For State : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Hrishabh Deo Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Judgment on Board 06.08.2025 1. The appellant/defendant has filed this first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 04-A/2006 by which learned trial Court has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff for arrears of rent and for vacant possession of the suit house. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status in Civil Suit No. 04-A/2006 which was filed before the BHUMIKA ANGARE Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2025.09.30 16:33:20 +0530 2 trial Court. 3. Brief facts as reflected from the plaint averment are that: (a) The plaintiff filed civil suit on 23.12.2005 for recovery of Rs. 63,000/- as arrears of rent and for vacant possession of suit house mainly contending that the plaintiff is owner of the house described in the schedule attached with the plaint situated at Ward No. 06 wherein two rooms with kitchen, washroom and courtyard was given to the defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 1,200/- per month. As per the rent agreement, tenancy starts from first date of every month and come to an end on the last date of same month. (b) It is also case of the plaintiff that the defendant has not paid rent since October 2001 which comes to Rs. 61,000/- and therefore, she has filed suit for arrears of rent. It is further case of the plaintiff that a separate tap connection has been provided to the defendant, the bill for which comes to Rs. 40/- per month and the defendant has not paid the said bill since October 2001 which amounts to Rs. 2000/- till December 2005 and also contended that it was agreed between the plaintiff and defendant that the suit premises will be vacated as soon as plaintiff’s second son solemnizes his marriage. Subsequently, marriage of plaintiff’s son was solemnized on 29.01.2005 then the plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate the suit premises but he has not vacated the same which has necessitated the plaintiff to file suit for eviction and for arrears of rent. 4. The defendant has filed written submission denying allegation made in the plaint mainly contending that the reason assigned by the plaintiff that she needs suit property bonafidely is far from truth as 3 there is other accommodation are already available for the plaintiff. It is also denied that he has not paid the rent and only Rs. 2800/- has to be recovered from him whereas he has already deposited the amount of Rs. 6200/- to the plaintiff as advance. It has also been contended that the other tenants are residing and to fix higher rent she has made false claim and would pray for dismissal of the suit. 5. Learned trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties has framed as many as 06 issues out of which 01 and 04 are relevant which reads as under: ^^01- ¼v½ D;k izfroknh 1000@& ¼,d gtkj½ :i;s izfr ekg dh nj ls oknh dk fdjk;snkj gS\ ¼c½ D;k izfroknh 600@& ¼N% lkS½ :i;s izfrekg dh nj ls oknh dk fdjk;nkj gS\ 04- D;k okfnukh dks vius f}rh; iq= ds O;kikj gsrw oknxzLr edku dh ln~HkkoukiwoZd vko’;drk gS\** 6. The plaintiff to substantiate her case has exhibited documents namely: application before the Rent Controlling Authority under Section 25 of the Accommodation Control Act (Exhibit P/1), Power of Attorney (Exhibit P/2), Notice (Exhibit P/3), Postal Receipt (Exhibit P/4), Reply of Notice (Exhibit P/5), Certified Order dated 28.04.2004 (Exhibit P/6). 7. The plaintiff to substantiate her case has examined Power of Attorney holder who is the husband of the plaintiff namely Dharamveer Singh Chawla (PW-01) by way of affidavit as provided under Order 18 Rule 4 of the C.P.C. wherein he has reiterated the stand taken by the plaintiff in her plaint and the witness was cross- examined by the defendant but nothing was brought on record to rebut the said contentions made in the plaint. In the cross- 4 examination he has admitted that elder daughter-in-law is running boutique in the room next to the suit property and his elder son is working with him in the ready-made shop and also admitted that Raj Kumar Sindhi is also tenant in their house. 8. The plaintiff has examined her son Hardeep Singh (PW-02) wherein he has stated that the rooms are very small and orally the defendant has assured that they will vacate the house as the house is required for residence and business purpose and in his examination-in-chief he has stated that his father is having sufficient fund to start business for him, therefore, the house is very much required so that he can start his ready-made wholesale business. The witness was cross- examined by the defendant and he has denied that he is working with his father and there is no fund available with him to start his wholesale business. He has admitted that he is residing with his parent. 9. The plaintiff has examined Manoj Kakkad (PW-03) who has supported the case of the plaintiff. 10. The defendant Satish Sethi to substantiate his submission has examined himself as DW-01, Rajkumar Narwani (DW-02), Sanjay Kumar Sinha (DW-03) and Dhananjay Kumar Sinha (DW-02). 11. Satish Sethi (DW-01) has examined himself under Order 18 Rule 4 of the C.P.C. and has stated that he had taken the house on rent for Rs. 600/- and has spent Rs. 25,000/- in renovation. He has further stated that the plaintiff and her husband stopped taking rent from October 2001, on which the defendant submitted an application for depositing the rent in the Court of learned Rent Control Officer to which the 5 plaintiff did not replied and the case was dismissed for lack of prosecution. He has further stated that the plaintiff has shown Rs. 1200/- in his deed and Rs. 1100/- per month in his statement whereas the rent is only Rs. 600/- per month. In cross-examination he has admitted that he has not submitted any documents regarding the expenditure incurred by him towards renovation of the suit premises and also admitted that he has not demanded any receipt from the plaintiff. 12. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence and material on record has decreed the suit vide its judgment dated 25.11.2009 and directed the defendant to pay Rs. 43,200/- towards arrears of rent and also passed decree of ejectment against the defendant within 02 months. 13. Being aggrieved with this judgment and decree, the defendant has preferred the instant appeal. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court has committed illegality in not considering that the bonafide need has not been proved by the plaintiff and there was dispute about the assessment of the rent, therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is contrary to the provision of law as on account of dispute with regard to quantum of actual payment of rent, as such, passing of the decree on account of arrears of rent is not permissible and would pray for allowing the appeal. 15. Per contra learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would support the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and would submit that plaintiff has filed suit on two grounds for arrears of rent 6 and for eviction of the plaintiff on need of bonafide requirement of the suit premises, therefore, submission made by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is liable to be rejected and would pray for rejection of the appeal. She would further submit that they have filed cross-appeal raising the grounds that the bonafide need has also been established by them beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the trial Court should have passed the decree on this count also and would pray for allowing the cross-appeal and for grant of decree of eviction on the count of bonafide need and as per Section 12(1)(a) of the M.P. & C.G. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 and Rules 1966. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 17. From the submission made by the parties and facts of the case, the point emerged for determination by this Court whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court suffers from perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. 18. To appreciate the issue raised in the suit, it is necessary for this Court to extract Section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(h) of the M.P. & C.G. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 and Rules, 1966 reads as under: “12(1)(a)- that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served on him by the landlord in the prescribed manner. 12(1)(h)- that the accommodation is required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of building or re-building or making thereto any substantial additions or alterations and that such building or rebuilding or alterations cannot be carried out without the accommodation being vacated.” 19. From perusal of the record and submission made by the parties 7 particularly the evidence adduced by the parties it is not in dispute that the plaintiff has given her suit premises to various persons on rent namely Harish Sindhi, Rajkumar Sindhi and a lady but that cannot be a ground to deny the right of landlord to utillize his property according to his own wisdom. It is well settled position of law that the tenant cannot dictate the terms of the landlord and it is for him to utilize the suit property according to convenience and requirement. The landlord is best judge to examine what is the bonafide need for his premises and it cannot be dictated by the tenant. This issue is no more res integra as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Murlidhar Aggarwal (D.) Thr. His LR. Atul Kumar Aggarwal Appellant(s) Versus Mahendra Pratap Kakan (D.) Thr. LRs. And Ors. decided on 24.04.2025 in Civil Appeal No. 4275 of 2017 wherein in relevant paragraphs has held as under: “25. It is well settled that the bona fide requirement for occupation of the landlord has to be liberally construed and, as such, even the requirement of the family members would be covered. [See Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal, (2002) 5 SCC 397 and Dwarkaprasad v. Niranjan and Anr., (2003) 4 SCC 549] 28. In Mohd. Ayub and Anr. v. Mukesh Chand, (2012) 2 SCC 155, this Court, by relying on Ganga Devi v. District Judge, Nainital and Ors., (2008) 7 SCC 770 and Bhagwan Dass v. Jiley Kaur (Smt) and Anr., 1991 Supp (2) SCC 300, held that one of the circumstances to be seen while appreciating the comparative hardship is to examine whether the tenant has brought on record any material to indicate that at any time during the pendency of the long drawn-out litigation, he made any attempt to seek an alternative accommodation and was unable to get it. This factor will be one of the circumstances to be taken into consideration while determining whether the claim of the landlord is bona fide. In this case, nothing is on record to show that the tenant who has been in the premises for a total of 73 years with 63 years of them after the expiry of the lease, has made any attempt to seek any alternative accommodation and nothing is brought on record to show that he was unable to get one. 8 31. In Nidhi v. Ram Kripal Sharma(D.) Thr. LRs, (2017) 5 SCC 640, the landlady had moved away to a different town after marrying an officer of the Indian Revenue Service. Notwithstanding that the Court found her bona fide need had subsisted as she wanted the premise not just for herself but to accommodate her parents & grandparents like in the present case, the need for the family was found. 32. In Sheshambal (D.) Thr. LRs. v. Chelur Corporation Chelur Building and Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 470, where the landlady lost throughout from the Trial Court stage, this Court while confirming the eviction decree found that none of the married daughters had a bona fide need for the premises and that the death of the landlady on facts of that case brought to an end the ground of personal requirement. The said case is wholly distinguishable from the facts that are established in the present case.” 20. Even the defendant is not able to justify that the suit premises is not required bonafidely by the plaintiff because this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the plaintiff’s son has already solemnized marriage and for their family house is very much required. Even the witness Hardeep (PW-02) in his examination-in-chief has also stated that premise is required for his family and to start his business which has not been rebutted by the defendant by recording cogent evidence, therefore, counter appeal filed by the plaintiff that bonafide need is required for suit premises deserves to be allowed by setting aside the finding of the learned trial Court that the bonafide need of the suit premises by the plaintiff has not been proved. Accordingly, the plaintiff is also entitled to get judgment and decree on the basis of bonafide need of the suit premises. 21. It is not in dispute that the arrears of rent has not been paid even the defendant in written statement has contended that he has already paid Rs. 6200/- and only Rs. 2800/- is liable to be paid. Even if it is Re. 1/- arrears of rent it has to be paid, therefore, in view of the admission of the defendant itself it cannot be said that arrears of rent 9 is not payable by the defendant. 22. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence and material on record has categorically recorded its finding that Rs. 43,200/- has to be paid by the appellant within 02 months and since he has not paid arrears for such a long period, therefore, the plaintiff has made out a case for ejectment of the tenant from the suit premises as per the provisions of Section 12(1)(a) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 1961, therefore, finding recorded by the trial Court that tenant has not paid the rent, therefore, he is entitled evicted from the suit premises as per Section 12(1)(a) of the Chhattigrah Rent Control Act, 1961 does not suffer from perversity, illegality which warrant interference by this Court, as such, the appeal filed by the defendant/tenant is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. 23. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed and it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to get decree of ejectment on the basis of bonafide need as per Section 12(1)(h) of the M.P. & C.G, Accommodation Control Act, 1961 and Rule, 1966 made therein. 24. Interim order passed by this Court on 24.02.2010 is vacated. 25. It is made clear that that the appellant shall leave the house premises within 04 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 26. No order as to cost. 27. A decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Bhumika