1 2025:CGHC:9867-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1096 of 2025 1 - Vijay Kumar Gandhi S/o Late Darshan Lal Gandhi, Aged About 58 Years R/o Dayalbandh,tehsil And District, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Indian Red Cross Society District Branch - Bilaspur, Through Chief Medical And Health Officer, Indian Red Cross Society, District Branch - Bilaspur, C.G. Office Address : Near Indira Vihar Colony, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, CG ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate DB : Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 27/02/2025 This writ appeal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing legality, correctness and judicial propriety of the order dated 01/05/2024 passed by the Court of Rent Controller, Bilaspur, CG in Case No.12/A-10(1) 2304 and order dated 06/11/2024 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, CG (for short ‘Tribunal’) in M.A.No.18/2024. 2. Facts of the case is that the respondent filed an application under Section 12 2 (2) read with schedule 2 (k) (M) (t) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (for short ‘Act of 2011’) before the Rent Control Authority, Bilaspur seeking eviction of the petitioner from the premises situated at Nazul Sheet No.27, Plot No.193/2 Khaparganj, Bilaspur admeasuring 750 sq.ft. (for short ‘suit property’). An application under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) was filed by the petitioner inter alia pleading that in the light of Section 3 of the Act of 2011, the application is not maintainable. It has been further pleaded in the application that the Collector is shown to be the President and Chief Medical Health Officer (CMHO) is shown to be the Secretary of the respondent and both officers are under the State Government and therefore, in the light of Section 3 of the Act of 2011, the application is not maintainable. It has been further pleaded that the Rent Controller is an officer in the cadre of Deputy Collector, therefore, under the principles of natural justice, a person cannot be a judge of his own cause. It has been further pleaded that the Collector is stated to be the President of the respondent and for the suit property, the application for eviction would be tried by a Deputy Collector, hence, the Rent Controller (Deputy Collector) has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. It has been further pleaded that as per the judgment dated 21/04/2010 passed in Civil Suit No.73-A/2005, the respondent was directed by a decree of mandatory injunction to execute a fresh rent agreement, however, despite of passing of 14 years, no new rent agreement was executed, hence, the rent could not be paid. The rent sent by the old rate was returned by the respondent as a result of which, the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant of the suit property, therefore, prima facie, the landlord– tenant relationship has not been proved and the application is not maintainable before the Rent Controller. 3. Reply of the said application was filed that as per the provisions contained 3 in the Act of 2011, the Rent Controller is having jurisdiction to entertain the application. It has been denied that the suit is not maintainable in the light of Section 3 of the Act of 2011. It has been further pleaded that in the decree dated 21/04/2010, it is mentioned that the petitioner shall not be evicted except in accordance with law and therefore, the application under the provisions contained under the Act of 2011 is filed which is maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the application. 4. The learned Rent Controller vide its order dated 01/05/2024 dismissed the application of the applicant filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. An appeal was preferred before the learned Tribunal which was also dismissed vide order dated 06/11/2024 observing that the grounds which have been raised in the application cannot be adjudicated under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The grounds taken with regard to Collector being the President and CMHO namely the Secretary and the application was filed before the Deputy Collector, hence it is a violation of principles of natural justice and a person cannot be a Judge of his own cause, therefore the grounds taken cannot be decided under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. It has been further observed that whether the application is barred by any law cannot be decided at this stage and objection raised by the petitioner can be raised in the written statement and the same can be decided after framing issue after recording evidence, hence the objection raised under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cannot be entertained at this stage. These two orders are under challenge before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal as well as Rent Controller committed an error of law in rejecting the application of the petitioner. He further submits that the application is barred by Section 3 of the Act 4 of 2011. He submits that the Rent Controller is an officer of Deputy Collector cadre whereas as per pleadings in the application filed by the respondents, the Collector is said to be the President and Chief Medical and Health Officer is said to be the Secretary of the respondents. The Rent Controller being the officer below the rank of the Collector cannot be a Judge of his own cause. Therefore, this writ petition may be allowed and the application of the respondent filed under the provisions of the Act of 2011 may be dismissed. He placed reliance on the judgment of High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Maya Devi Keswani v. The Estate Officer (Addl. District Magistrate, Jaipur) and ors., 2002 SCC Online Raj 522. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC filed by the petitioner and the learned Tribunal also dismissed the appeal against such an order and observed that the ground which has been raised in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be taken in the written statement and can be decided after framing issues in that regard. It is well settled position of law that while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, the plaint averment has to be looked into. The defence of the opposite party at the stage of deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC ought to be looked into. Learned Tribunal has categorically observed that the grounds which have been raised by the petitioner in his application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be taken in the written statement and can be decided by the learned Rent Controller by framing issues and leading evidence in that regard. 8. The finding recorded by the Rent Controller and the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse. The grounds which have been agitated in the application under 5 Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be taken in the defence by the petitioner in his written statement. The Rent Controller may make an issue with regard to the grounds raised by the petitioner and may decide the same after recording the evidence. Therefore, we do not find any illegality, jurisdictional error or irregularity in the impugned orders warranting interference by this Court. The petitioner may take such grounds in the written statement which may be decided by the Rent Controller after framing issue in that regard and recording evidence if so advised. With this observation, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.03.03 10:45:55 +0530