1 CGHC010059282024 2026:CGHC:28783-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1157 of 2024 1 - Uttpal Jaiswal S/o Shri Dinesh Jaiswal Aged About 50 Years R/o Danipara Road, Behind City Kotwali, Raigarh, Tehsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - Ramesh Chandra Sharma Through His Legal Representative (Died) Nil 1.1 - 1. Meena Sharma W/o Late Shri Ramesh Chandra Sharma Aged About 50 Years R/o Sewa Kunj, Raigarh, Tehsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 1.2 - 2. Shailesh Sharma S/o Late Shri Ramesh Chandra Sharma Aged About 27 Years R/o Sewa Kunj, Raigarh, Tehsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 1.3 - 3. Vivek Sharma S/o Late Shri Ramesh Chandra Sharma Aged About 26 Years R/o Sewa Kunj, Raigarh, Tehsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 1.4 - 4. Priti Sharma D/o Late Shri Ramesh Chandra Sharma Aged About 25 Years R/o Sewa Kunj, Raigarh, Tehsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 1.5 - 5. Priya Sharma D/o Late Shri Ramesh Chandra Sharma Aged About 23 Years R/o Sewa Kunj, Raigarh, Tehsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 1.6 - Vinay Sharma S/o Late Shri Ramesh Chandra Sharma Aged About 18 Years R/o Sewa Kunj, Raigarh, Tehsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 1.7 - 7. Minor Mithun Sharma S/o Late Shri Ramesh Chandra Sharma Aged About 12 Years Through Natural Guardian Meena Sharma W/o Late Ramesh Sharma 2 Aged About 50 Year, R/o Sewa Kunj, Raigarh, Tehsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Amit Rawani S/o Shri Koshore Rawani Works At M/s Balaji Services, R/o Railway Banglapara, Near Jagannath Mandir, Railgarh Tehsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Shivang Dubey, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate DB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Hon’ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 09/07 /2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of the matter, 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside order dated 26.02.2020; 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside order dated 10.05.2023; 10.4 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition; 10.5 Grant any other relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10.6 Kindly grant cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/tenant by this writ petition has questioned the legality and sustainability of the order dated 10.05.2023 passed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the RCT) in Appeal No. 46-A/2021 whereby, the appeal preferred by the Respondent No. 2 herein was partly allowed to the extent of the liability to pay the arrears of rent jointly upon the appellant therein and the Respondent No. 8 therein. 3 3. Facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner as also, the Respondent No. 2 had executed a rent agreement with Ramesh Chandra Sharma (Landlord) (Respondent No. 1) on 13.12.2015 for taking a house bearing Khasra No. 79 in Ward No. 15 & 16 admeasuring 420.25 sq feet on a rent of Rs, 18,500/- per month. The Landlord/owner of the house had issued legal notice on 31.08.2016 mentioning that the possession of the rented house be handed-over within a period of 06 months i.e. by 01.03.2017. The non-applicants, tenants therein, had sent reply to the legal notice on 22.02.2017, after expiry of the period of 06 months. However, even after receipt of the notice, rented accommodation was not vacated nor rent was paid. Landlord thereafter had filed an application under Section 12 (2) (11) (h) under Schedule II of the Rent Control Act, 2011 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Act, 2011) before the Rent Control Authority, Raigarh (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the RCA) seeking a relief of vacant possession of suit accommodation and arrears of rent. 4. The non-applicants therein/petitioner as also, the Respondent No. 2 did not appear before the RCA even after service of notice and they were proceeded ex parte. The application filed by them under Order 9 Rule 7 for setting-aside the ex parte proceedings was dismissed on 12.03.2018. The case was thereafter fixed for recording of evidence of the applicants therein. They were examined by the applicant’s counsel and were also cross-examined by the non-applicant’s counsel therein and thereafter, the RCA has passed final order on 22.06.2020 directing the non-applicant/tenant to handed-over the vacant possession of the suit accommodation and directed the Non-applicant No. 1 to pay arrears of rent to the applicants. This order of the RCA was put to challenge in an appeal before the RCT by the Respondent No. 2 on merits as also, 4 challenging the order of the RCT of fastening liability solely upon the Non- Applicant No. 1. 5. The RCT, Raipur vide impugned order 10.05.2023 (Annexure P/10) after hearing both the counsels of the respective parties have allowed the appeal in part and modified the order dated 26.02.2020 passed by the RCA of fastening liability upon the Respondent No. 2 and ordered that Respondent No. 2 as also, the appellant herein are equally liable to pay the arrears of rent from February, 2017 till vacant possession of the accommodation is handed-over to the Landlord. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the RCA by the reasoned order evaluating the oral and documentary evidence has come to a conclusion and directed the Respondent No. 2 to pay the arrears of rent. The RCA took note of the fact of evidence of one of the witnesses of Landlord wherein, the witness in clear terms have stated that her husband rented the shop adjacent to his shop and further stated that the petitioner i.e. Utpal Kumar has not paid rent at any point of time. She admitted that she was told that Nokia is closed and the Respondent No. 2 is paying rent of the shop and has also prayed for reduction of the rent. It is submitted that the RCA has taken note of the specific evidence as brought in by Ms. Meena Sharma, the applicant’s witness. The Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence as brought in by the parties as available in the record. He also pointed that the partnership between the appellant and the Respondent No. 2 ended much earlier and therefore, the order so far as it relates to fastening of liability to pay the arrears of rent on the appellant be also set-aside. 7. Learned counsel for the respective respondents opposes the submission of the counsel for the petitioner and would submit that in the facts of the case, RCA as also, the RCT has correctly taken note of the period of notice and the provision under Section 12 (1) as also, Clause 11 (2) of 5 Schedule 2 and have rightly passed an order of eviction and handing over the vacant possession of the suit premises. Learned counsel also pointed out that there was an arrears of rent and the non-applicants/tenants have not submitted any document to show withdrawal/cancellation of the partnership and therefore, in the facts of the case, where both partners have singed the rent-deed and therefore, both of them are liable to pay the arrears of rent. 8. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 have supported the order passed by the learned RCT. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents placed on record along with the writ petition. 10.From the grounds that is pleaded in the memo of the petition would show that the petitioner herein has raised one of the grounds that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The RCT failed to take note of the evidence of the witness Ms. Meena Sharma in its entirety wherein, she deposed that the rent premises is being used by the Respondent No. 2. He also contended that the RCA upon proper appreciation of evidence brought on record as also, the pleadings had rightly came to the conclusion that it is the Respondent No. 2 alone using the rented accommodation, held the Respondent No. 2 liable to pay the arrears of rent. He also referred to the evidence of the witness Ms. Meena Sharma to submit that the witness has made submission that Nokia has been shut and thereby, the partnership also came to an end. The petitioner herein was not having any knowledge of the rent premises being used by the Respondent No. 2 after expiry of the extended period of 06 months. 11.From the order passed by the RCT dated 10.05.2023, it is appearing that though the non-applicants/tenants before the RCA has submitted an 6 application for setting-aside the ex-parte proceedings by filing an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC which came to be dismissed on 12.03.2018. The non-applicants after dismissal of their application under Order 9 Rule 7 has not challenged the said order before the higher forum or the High Court even after getting sufficient time, because, the RCA has passed final order in the case only on 26.02.2020 i.e. after about 01 year and 11 months. It is further reflecting from the orders of RCA and the RCT that the non-applicants before the RCA have thereafter, participated in the proceedings drawn by the RCA cross-examined appellant’s witnesses and therefore, it cannot be said that the order passed by the RCA is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The order of RCA dated 27.02.2020 was not put to challenge by the petitioner, but it was put to challenge by the Respondent No. 2 only. 12.The Respondent No. 2 in its appeal before the RCT or petitioner in the proceedings before the RCA or the RCT has not placed any document to show that their partnership was dissolved or the petitioner herein had given any notice of termination of the rent agreement executed by him along with his partner and the fact that in absence of any documentary proof that the partnership between the petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 was dissolved in any manner. Further considering that in the rent agreement, both the partners have signed and therefore, one of the partner cannot be absolved from their liability to pay the arrears of rent. The evidence of Ms. Meena Sharma (P.W.1) is a hear say witness so far as it relates to the partnership between the two partners who are tenant and have taken the suit accommodation on rent for executing the rent agreement by signatures of both them. Before this Court also, no document is placed on record and when the execution of agreement by the petitioner also along with the Respondent No. 2 at the time of taking the suit accommodation on rent is not disputed, in the opinion of this 7 Court, the finding recorded by the learned RCT that both the tenants who have executed the rent agreement are liable to pay the arrears of rent cannot be said to be erroneous, till the agreement is in existence. 13.Petitioner is a Tenant as defined under Section 2 (14) of the Act, 2011 and is having the obligation under Clause 8 of Schedule 4 formulated under Section 12 (4) of the Act, 2011 to pay the rent and over-dues fully and regularly in the manner as settled with the Landlord. For the foregoing discussions, we do not find any error of law or infirmity in the finding recorded by the learned RCT and holding that the petitioner also is equally liable to pay the arrears of rent. 14. The writ petition being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby, dismissed. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY