1 2026:CGHC:25978-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3077 of 2026 1. Ramesh Arya S/o Shri Chandra Arya Aged About 48 Years R/o Purana Sarkanda Lodhipara Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. Shri Hemant Agrawal S/o Late Om Prakash Agrawal Aged About 47 Years R/o Sarkanda, Lodhipara, Bilaspur Tehsil, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Smt. Asha Kediya W/o Kamal Kediya Aged About 60 Years R/o Sarkanda Ps Sarkanda District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Smt. Usha Singhaniya W/o Late Satish Singhaniya Aged About 58 Years R/o Bamnidih, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 4. Smt. Nisha Agrawal W/o Ashok Agrawal Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Takhatpur District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Wrongly Mention Mungeli Impugned Order) 5. Smt. Kiran Agrawal W/o Santosh Agrawal Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Naila Tahsil And District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 6. The Tahsildar Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Government Advocate SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 DB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J 24.06.2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. Challenge is this petition is to the order dated 11.5.2026 passed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in Appeal No.34A/2024 arising out of the order dated 30.5.2024 passed by learned Rent Control Authority, Raipur (for short ‘the Authority’) in Case No.30/A- 90(7) year 2020-21. 3. This is tenant’s appeal. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that an application under Sections 8 and 12 (2) of the the Act of 2011 was filed by original applicant (who died during pendency of application), pleading that she is owner of shop constructed over land situated in PH No.32, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, said shop was let out to petitioner-non-applicant-tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.1500/- in which he was running grocery shop. Since both the applicant and the non-applicant are residents of Sarkanda and shared cordial relations, no written tenancy agreement was executed between the parties. Applicant requested the non-applicant to vacate the shop and handover vacant possession as the same is needed by her for the business of her son and grandson. Non-applicant assured to vacate the 3 shop by 31.12.2020, but he did not vacate. Applicant issued registered notice dated 25.1.2021 to non-applicant calling upon him to vacate the shop and to pay arrears of rent. However, non-applicant failed to vacate the shop and to pay arrears of rent despite service of notice. Therefore, the applicant filed application seeking eviction of non-applicant from the shop in question and for payment of arrears of rent. 5. Non-applicant filed reply and admitted the landlady-tenant relationship, however, denied that applicant ever asked him to vacate the shop nor he along with other tenants had quarreled and threatened applicant and her husband on such demand being made. He never gave assurance to vacate the shop by 31.12.2020. He is regularly paying fixed rent to landlady. Applicant owns many shops in the city of Bilaspur and she does not require the suit shop. Non-applicant has not acted illegally or inappropriately giving rise to cause of action in favour of applicant to file eviction application. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controlling Authority framed as many as three issues and granted opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. After considering the evidence, documents, pleadings and submissions advanced by parties, the Rent Controlling Authority vide order dated 30.5.2024 allowed the application for eviction and directed the tenant to handover vacant possession of the shop in question to the 4 legal heirs of deceased landlady. The Authority has held that tenant was duly served with six month’s notice as required under Section 12 (2) read with sub-para (h) of Sr. No.11 of Schedule-II of the Act of 2011; despite service of notice, tenant did not vacate the shop; said act of tenant is contrary to provisions of the Act of 2011; since the eviction application is filed under Section 12 (2) of the Act of 2011, tenant is not required to prove need of accommodation by her. 7. Non-applicant/tenant filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal against the order dated 30.5.2024, which came to be registered as Appeal No.34A/2024. By the order impugned, the Tribunal has arrived at the conclusion that since the eviction application is filed after expiry of period of six months, the landlady is not under obligation to assign any reason for seeking eviction of tenant and accordingly, converted the order of eviction into under Clause 11 (h) of Schedule 2 of Section 12 (2) from Clause 11 (g) of Schedule 2 of Section 12 (2) of the Act of 2011 while imposing a condition that shop will not be rented out at a higher rent for at least 12 months from the date of order. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner-tenant would submit that the authorities below have committed a grave error of law in directing eviction of petitioner-tenant without properly considering and appreciating the statutory provisions 5 governing eviction under the Act of 2011. He submits that the Authority has recorded in its order that landlady is having some other shops in her possession. In the teeth of this finding that other shops are in possession of the landlady, it is apparent that there was no need for the shop in question. He further submits that in reply petitioner had specifically pleaded that respondents have not disclosed on which specific khasra number, the suit shop is constructed and in absence thereof, the application seeking eviction was vague and defective. He further submits that no cause of action accrued to the respondents for seeking eviction of petitioner because petitioner has not committed any act attracting any of the grounds for eviction under the provisions of the Act of 2011. Hence, the order of eviction of petitioner from the shop in question ignoring all the aforesaid facts is clearly erroneous and liable to be interfered. 9. Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.6 on advance copy submits that respondent No.6 is a formal party in the matter. 10. Question for determination in this writ petition is whether eviction of petitioner-tenant suffers from any illegality or perversity warranting interference in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 6 11. There is no dispute relating to landlord-tenant relationship. Deceased landlady served upon the petitioner notice dated 25.1.2021 through her counsel asking him to hand over vacate possession as she requires the suit shop bona fidely for the business of her son and grandson. It is also not in dispute that after service of notice, when shop was not vacated, suit premises, application under Section 8 and 12 (2) of the Act of 2011 was filed on 11.8.2021 for getting the vacant possession of the disputed house on the ground that it is required for occupation by her son and grandson. Non-applicant tenant filed reply to application pleading that demand to vacate the tenanted shop was never made. He is regularly paying rent of shop to landlady. She has many other shops in the city of Bilaspur, therefore, she is not in bona fide need of shop in question. No cause of action has arisen in favour of applicant. 12. The Rent Control Authority upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its order dated 30.5.2024 allowed application for eviction and directed tenant to vacate the shop. In the appeal preferred by non-applicant/tenant against order of eviction, the Tribunal converted the order of eviction into under clause 11 (g) of from clause 11 (h) of Schedule 2 of Section 12 (2) of the Act of 2011. 7 13. Section 12 of the Act of 2011 deals with rights and obligations of Landlords and Tenants. This section purports that every landlord shall have rights according to Schedule 2 and the Tribunal and Rent Controller shall act at all times to secure to the landlord these rights. Section 12 (2) of the Act of 2011 reads as under:- “12. Rights and Obligations of Landlords and Tenants.- (1) xxxxx (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...” 14. Schedule 2 is made under Section 12 (2) of the Act of 2011. Serial No. 11 (g) of Schedule 2 provides that the eviction can be sought by the landlord, after service of notice of 3 months notice in writing, if the accommodation is required for own occupation or by any member of family. Likewise, the Clause 11 (h) purports purports that six months prior notice to the tenant in writing, without any obligation to assign any reason to get the premises vacated. 15. Clause 11 (g) & (h) of Schedule-2 of Section 12 (2) of the Act of 2011 is reproduced herein below : “11.Right to seek from the Rent Controller eviction of the tenant on the following grounds :- (g) On 3 months notice to the tenant in writing, if the accommodation is required for own 8 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 at least 12 months thereafter....” 16. A bare reading of above would show that every landlord shall have right to seek from Rent Controller eviction of the tenant after serving 03 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. Likewise, Clause (h) do not put any obligation on the landlord to assign any reason, it only requires that 6 months notice to the tenant in writing would be necessary, however on the condition that the accommodation will not be leased out at a higher rent for atleast 12 months thereafter. 17. Minute scrutiny of facts and evidence, as discussed by Rent Controlling Authority in its order dated 30.5.2024, it is apparent that original landlady/applicant sought eviction of the tenant/petitioner herein on the ground mentioned in Clause 11 (g) of Schedule-2 of Section 12 (2) of the Act of 2011, that is to say, on the ground of requirement of suit shop for the business of her son and grandson. AW-1(A) Omprakash Agrawal, 9 examined on behalf of original applicant/landlady, has stated in his statement on oath that original landlady was his wife. Non- applicant is tenant in shop in question on the monthly rent of Rs.1,500/- and he is running grocery shop. Being in need of suit shop to establish office of the business of her son and grandson, she orally requested the non-applicant / tenant to handover vacant possession of suit shop but he did not. Thereafter, registered notice of Ex.P-1 was issued on 25.1.2021 to tenant, which was duly received by him. From the contents of notice (Ex.P-1) served upon petitioner-tenant it is apparent that there is clear mention of need of suit shop for the business of her son and grandson. Non-applicant / tenant in his examination-in-chief has categorically admitted that he has taken the suit shop on rent from Anguri Bai (original landlady and predecessor of present respondents). He did not plead service or non-service of notice in his reply or examination-in- chief. However, in para-12 of his cross-examination admitted service of notice through his father. 18. The Tribunal in the appeal preferred by petitioner-tenant has considered the ground raised by appellant/petitioner-tenant that finding of the Authority that applicant-landlady had proved the need of shop for her son and grandson by admissible piece of evidence. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that original landlady has issued the notice of six months considering the 10 pleadings made in the application for eviction. Before this Court, it is not the case of the petitioner-tenant that said finding is perverse. 19. The Act of 2011 has been enacted with a laudable object of balancing interest of the landlord and the tenant. Under the provisions of the Act of 2011, rights and obligations of the landlord and the tenant are provided under Section 12, which are specified in the Schedules appended to Section 12 (1) and (2). Clause 11 of the Schedule under Section 12 (2) of the Act of 2011 talks of right of a landlord to seek from the Rent Controller eviction of the tenant on the grounds enumerated thereunder. For eviction under Clause 11 (h) of Schedule-2, it only mentions of six months notice without any obligation to assign any reason but on the condition that accommodation will not be leased out at a higher rent for at least 12 months thereafter. This provision has been incorporated to protect the interest of the landlord that for getting rented accommodation evicted from the tenant, he is not to make out a case of his requirement or any other purpose, but issuance of notice for a period of six months in itself is sufficient. 20. The Tribunal recording a finding with regard to issuance of six months notice on 25.1.2021(Ex.P-1) and filing of application for eviction on 11.8.2023 i.e. after completion of period of six months, has concluded that applicant-landlady is entitled for 11 eviction of tenant from the suit shop under the provision of Clause 11 (h) of Schedule 2 of section 12 (2) of the Act of 2011. The Tribunal has also imposed condition which is forming part of Clause 11 (h) i.e. of not giving the suit shop to any other person at a higher rate for at least 12 months thereafter and thereby had protected the interest of tenant also. 21. In absence of challenge to said finding on the ground of perversity, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal though affirming the order of eviction on the ground as enumerated under Clause 11 (h) of Schedule 2 of Section 12 (2) of the Act of 2011 when the tenant has not disputed relationship of landlord-tenant. 22. For the foregoing discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the petition has no merit and is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost (s). However, petitioner- tenant is granted four months time to vacate the shop/rented premises subject matter of proceedings. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge roshan/-