1 2026:CGHC:6815-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 28.11.2025 06. 02.2026 -- 06.02.2026 WPC No. 2486 of 2025 Dr. Badri Prasad Jaiswal S/o Late Ganesh Prasad Jaiswal, aged about 74 years (wrongly mentioned as 66 years) R/o Normal School (Old High Court) Road, In front of Bihari Takiz, Bilaspur, Tehsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus 1 - Kamal Kumar Makheeja S/o Vashudev Makhija, aged about 39 years, R/o Old High Court Road, beside Ganga Shri Takiz, Gandhi Chowk, Bilaspur, Tehsil and District - Bilaspur (C.G.). 2 - Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, through Registrar, C.G. Rent Control Tribunal, Old R.D.A. Building, first floor, Shastri chowk, Raipur, (C.G.). 3 - The Rent Controlling Authority, District, Bilaspur, Near Collectorate Bilaspur, (C.G.). ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System Software) Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate along with Ms. Durga Mehar, Advocate. Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey, J. Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. C A V Order Per, Rajani Dubey , Judge 1. The petitioner (landlord) has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur (henceforth ‘the Tribunal) in appeal No. 15-A/2024 whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the respondent No. 1/ non-applicant (tenant) and set aside the order dated 13.02.2024 passed by the Rent Control Authority (henceforth ‘the Authority’)/ Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) by which the Authority has passed the order with regard to eviction of the respondent and further directed to make payment of remaining arrears of rent to the petitioner. 2. Hence, this petition filed by the petitioner seeking for following relief(s): A. That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to issue the suitable writ petition/order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of the petitioner and quash, set-aside the impugned order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the learned tribunal in the appeal No. 15-A/2024 (Annexure -P/1) and restore/conformed the order passed by the rent control authority. 3 B. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order and protect the legal right of the senior citizen for filing of the fresh application, otherwise the provision of the CG rent control act 2011 would be frustrated. And further direct the respondent/tenant to immediately vacate the shop of the petitioner. C. Any other relief(s), which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioner. 3. Brief facts of the case as adumbrated by the petitioner are that the petitioner is the senior citizen person, aged about 74 years, residing at Normal School (Old High Court) Road, in front of Bihari Takiz, Bilaspur, Tehsil & District-Bilaspur (C.G.) and he is a doctor by profession. The petitioner is the owner of the questioned shop situated at Old High Court Road, beside Ganga Shri Takiz, Gandhi Chowk, Bilaspur for which one rent agreement for 11 months period was executed between the parties on 20.03.2016 and after ending of the said period, no any other rent agreement was executed between the parties. The petitioner requires the subject shop for personal use, specifically to operate a medical clinic near his home, due to his advanced age and associated health considerations. Furthermore, because the shop is old, the petitioner requires it to be renovated. In view of his personal need, the petitioner requested the respondent No. 1/tenant to vacate the 4 shop, however, the respondent No. 1/tenant has avoided the petitioner's requests and, since July 2022, has stopped paying the monthly rent and denied the petitioner's ownership of the questioned shop. Therefore, on 20.09.2022 the legal notice had been sent by the petitioner through his advocate to the respondent No. 1/tenant with a request to vacate the questioned shop within a period of 30 days. However, the respondent No. 1/tenant denied to vacate the questioned shop and tried to create the dispute over the ownership of the shop, therefore looking into the conduct of the respondent No. 1/tenant, upon the expiration of the one month period, the petitioner filed the application on 09.11.2022 before the Rent Control Authority, Bilaspur for eviction and arrears of rent. The case is registered as 24/A-90(7)/2022-23 and after taking the evidence of both the parties, vide order dated 13.02.2024 the Rent Control Authority allowed the application of the petitioner and passed the order with regard to eviction of the respondent No. 1/tenant and further directed him to make payment of remaining arrears of rent to the petitioner. Though, against the order of the Rent Control Authority, the respondent No. 1/tenant filed the appeal before the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal which was registered as appeal No. 15-A/2024 and vide order dated 17.03.2025, the rent control tribunal has allowed the appeal of respondent No.1/tenant by setting aside the order dated 13.02.2024 passed by the Rent Control Authority on the ground that the application filed by the petitioner was at premature stage by ignoring the provision of the clause 11 (h) of the schedule II of the C.G. Rent Control Act, 2011 and given the undue advantage of 5 typing mistake to the respondent No. 1/tenant against the rules of law. However, while passing the impugned order, the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal had ignored the basic facts such as the petitioner is the senior citizen of 74 years and he had need of the questioned shop and further ignored the basic principle of law such as procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice. Thus, the impugned order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the tribunal is bad in the eyes of law. Hence, this petition filed by the petitioner. 4. Mr. Neeraj Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal is bad in the eyes of law. There is no dispute regarding that the petitioner is the senior citizen person and owner of the questioned shop, therefore, he has the right for getting the questioned shop from the respondent for his personal use. However, while passing the impugned order in the appeal, the learned Tribunal has given the reason as the petitioner filed the application before the rent control authority on 09.11.2022, whereas the legal notice has been given by the petitioner on 20.09.2022, therefore, the petitioner filed the application before ending of three months as such at the premature stage, therefore the appeal has been allowed by the learned Tribunal through the impugned order. The learned Tribunal had failed to appreciate the age of the petitioner, also failed to appreciate the provision of the clause 11 (h) of the II Schedule of the C.G. Rent Control Act while passing the impugned order. 6 The clear provision in the clause 11 (h) is reproduced as under:- “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 citizen (above the age of 65 years.)” The petitioner is entitled to get back the possession of the questioned shop because his running age is 74 years and under the law, it is not required for the petitioner for waiting the 3/6 months for filing the application before the rent control authority after issuing notice, thus the finding of the learned tribunal is bad in the eyes of law. The learned Tribunal had given the undue advantage to the respondent No. 1/tenant for the typing mistake appeared in the application filed by the petitioner advocate before the rent control tribunal, and no opportunity of hearing has been given by learned tribunal to the petitioner to prove his age, as such no question in this regard has been raised by thee respondent No. 1/tenant before the rent control authority as well as in the appeal. The finding of the learned Tribunal is perverse, as such no evidence in this regard is available in the record. While, passing the impugned order, the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal had ignored the basic facts, as such the petitioner is 74 years older person and he had need of the questioned shop, therefore, one 7 notice is sufficient under the law, and if there is any typing mistake regarding age of the petitioner, the tribunal cannot give the advantage to the respondent/tenant without giving affordable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in this particular point. However, the tribunal did not call for any explanation from the petitioner and allowed the appeal in this reason, which is a clear violation of principles of natural justice. He further submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the rent control authority, but the learned tribunal instead to record the evidence or remanding back the matter to the rent control authority for adjudication of the issue regarding the age of the petitioner, set aside the order of the Authority without appreciating the fact that any wrong committed by the Authority/SDO (R) and any procedural defect should not be attributed to a party, who has approached the authority under a particular statute. The appeal of respondent No. 1/ tenant was allowed in a capricious manner against the rule of law and the same is deserved to be set aside by the Hon’ble High Court on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned Tribunal ignored the fact that at the time of filing the application, the petitioner was a senior citizen (over 71 years of age) entitled to protection against the illegal acts of the respondent/tenant. Furthermore, the Tribunal ignored the relevant documents regarding the petitioner's age that were in support of his contention. So, the impugned order dated 17.03.2025 Annexure P/1 is liable to be quashed/set aside. 5. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme 8 Court in the matter of Jai Ram Mahor Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon reported in (1969) 1 SCC 869, in the case of Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh and Another reported in (2006) 1 SCC 75, in the case of M/S Ramnath Exports Private Limited v. Vinita Mehta and Another reported in (2022) 7 SCC 678, in the case of Samir Mukherjee v. Davinder K. Bajaj and Others reported in (2001) AIR (SC) 1696 and in the case of Kanahaiya Lal Arya v. Ehshan & Ors. reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 250. 6. Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia and Ms. Durga Mehar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/tenant by supporting the impugned judgment submits that the Learned Rent Control Tribunal rightly passed the impugned order as per Rules of Provisions of C.G. Rent Control Act, 2011, so this petition is without any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the material available on record. 8. Section 12(2) Schedule 2 Serial No. 11 (g) and (h) provided as under:- “(g) On 3 months notice to the tenant in writing, if the accommodation is required for own occupation and/or occupation by any member of the family including spouse, parent(s), son(s), daughter, daughter(s)-in-law, son(s)-in-law. (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 9 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).” 9. The learned Rent Control Authority in its order dated 13.02.2024 finds that the petitioner is landlord and respondent No. 1 is tenant and the petitioner/landlord has sent legal notice to the respondent No. 1 on 20.09.2022 with a request to vacate the disputed shop within a period of 30 days, but the tenant denied to vacate the disputed shop and also disputed the ownership of the petitioner. The petitioner then filed an application before the Rent Control Authority on 09.11.2022 for eviction and arrears of rent. 10. The provision of Clause 11 (h) of the II Schedule of the C.G. Rent Control Act is reproduced below for ready reference:- “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 citizen (above the age of 65 years.)” 11. It is clear from the notice dated 20.09.2022 that in this notice, the age of the petitioner is written as 63 years and now he is more than 65 years. 12. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Kanahaiya Lal (supra) held in paragraph 10 & 11 which reads as under:- 10 “10. The law with regard to eviction of a tenant from the suit premises on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord is well settled. The need has to be a real one rather than a mere desire to get the premises vacated. The landlord is the best judge to decide which of his property should be vacated for satisfying his particular need. The tenant has no role in dictating as to which premises the landlord should get vacated for his need alleged in the suit for eviction. 11. In the case at hand, the appellant-landlord may be having some other properties under tenancy of various persons but once he has decided to get the suit premises vacated for the bona fide need of establishing an ultrasound machine for his two unemployed sons, he cannot be forced to initiate such a proceeding against the other tenants. It is for the appellant- landlord to take a decision in this regard and once he has decided to get the suit premises vacated, no error or illegality could be pointed out in his decision. Secondly, it has come on record by clear finding of the court of first instance that the suit premises is the most suitable accommodation for establishing an ultrasound machine. The reason being that it is situated adjacent to a medical clinic and a pathological centre and is the most appropriate place for establishing any medical machine. Moreover, the appellant-landlord has also proved his capacity to invest in purchasing/establishing an ultrasound machine and that his two sons are unemployed and as such the suit premises is required to establish them in business and to augment the family’s income. Therefore, the bona fide need 11 of the appellant-landlord stands duly established.” 13. In the matter of Uday Shankar Triyar (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “ Procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice. Procedure should never be made a tool to deny justice or perpetuate injustice by any oppressive or punitive use.” 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Ramnath Exports Private Limited (supra) in para 10 is reproduced herein for ready reference as under:- “10. It is a trite law that the procedural defect may fall within the purview of irregularity and capable of being cured, but it should not be allowed to defeat the substantive right accrued to the litigant without affording reasonable opportunity. Therefore, in our considered view, non- adjudication of the CLMA application, and upholding preliminary objection of non- maintainability of one appeal by High Court has caused serious prejudice to the appellant.” 15. In the light of above cited judgments, and in the present case also, it is clear that the learned Rent Control Authority after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence finds that the petitioner is a landlord and the respondent No. 1 was not paying rent and also not vacating the premises after receiving the legal notice dated 20.09.2022 and rightly allowed the application of the petitioner/landlord, but the learned Rent Control Tribunal only on 12 this ground that he has not mentioned the particulars, special details in the notice, set-aside the well reasoned order of the learned Rent Control Authority. The learned Rent Control Tribunal finds that the suit is premature and set aside the suit filed by the petitioner. 16. Upon comprehensive evaluation of record, we find that now, the petitioner is aged more than 65 years and the respondent No. 1 admitted his tenancy in the disputed shop, however, he denied the ownership of the petitioner, but looking to the findings of the learned Rent Control Tribunal, we find that only on minor irregularities, the petitioner/landlord cannot be deprived of from his right. So, the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal dated 17.03.2025 is set aside and the order passed by the learned Rent Control Authority dated 13.02.2024 is restored by directing the respondent No. 1/tenant to vacate the premises within 02 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and also deposit all the arrears of rent. 17. Ex Consequenti, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. 18. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge U.K. Raju