Balram Kodwani vs Smt. Reema Sahu W/O Shri Naresh Sahu

Sachin Singh Rajput, J

This petition has been filed against the order dated 03.02.2025 passed by Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, CG (Annexure P-1) in Appeal No. 01-A/2024 by which the appeal filed against the order dated 15.12.2023 passed by Rent Controller, Korba, CG in Case No. 202007050100002/A-90 year 2019-20, has been dismissed.

Facts in short: Father of the petitioner namely Late Chetandas Kodwani had taken the disputed shop constructed on Khasra No. 997/2, Main Road, Purani Basti, Korba, on monthly rent of Rs. 300/- about 40 years back from its owner namely Late Timanlal and was running the business of Hosiery since then. The rent was being regularly deposited in the Court. Subsequently, respondents/landlord orally asked the petitioners/tenants to vacate the disputed shop but they did not do that. Therefore the respondents/Landlord filed an application under Section 12 (1)(f) of Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (for short “Act of 2011”) for handing over the vacant possession of the rented shop.

The petitioners/tenant by filing the reply to the application moved by the respondents/landlord denied the averments made therein. It was pleaded that the rented shop was taken on rent about 40 years back and that the rent up to September, 2020 was deposited before the CD of the Civil Court on 03.03.2020. It is denied that the petitioners/tenants were orally asked to vacate the disputed shop or was there any unbecoming scene created by the respondents-landlord.

Both the parties led their evidence to establish their case. Rent Controller vide its order dated 15.12.2023 allowed the application of respondents/landlord and directed that the petitioners/tenant be evicted from the disputed shop and its vacant possession be handed over to the respondents/land lord in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2011. Challenging the said order dated 15.12.2023 the petitioners/tenant preferred the appeal under Section 13 of the Act  of  2011  before  the  Chhattisgarh  Rent Control  Tribunal,  Raipur, (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) which after hearing the parties dismissed the same by the order under challenge in this petition dated 03.02.2025.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings recorded by the Rent Controller as also that of the Tribunal are perverse and contrary to law. He submits that the tenancy of the disputed shop had begun about four decades back, and the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is also established. He submits that both the Courts below have not considered the documents on record in its proper perspective and therefore the findings of both the courts below are liable to be set aside.

Heard counsel for the petitioner/tenant and perused the material on record.

From perusal of the documents on record, tenancy over the disputed shop is not disputed. Learned Rent Controller on the basis of evidence brought before it by the respondents/landlord directed the petitioners/tenant to vacate the disputed shop. This finding has subsequently been affirmed in appeal as well. As regards maintainability of the suit for violation of Section 4 of the Act of 2011, it has been dealt with by the Rent Controller observing that as there is admission of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, suit cannot be dismissed on that very ground. Learned Tribunal relying on Section 10 of the Act of 2011 has held that framing of issue may not be necessary for deciding the case. It is observed that as the Rent Controller has decided the suit on all the points separately, mere non framing of the issues cannot vitiate the entire order, and accordingly, the objection so raised to this effect has been turned down. The view taken by both the Courts below are thus fully in consonance with the material on record and the provisions of law as well. No interference with the order impugned is thus warranted by this Court.

Petition therefore being without any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

Three month time as sought for by the petitioners/tenants is granted for vacation of the disputed shop and handing the same over to the respondents/landlord.