Dismissed

Sirajuddin Ansari v. Irfan Ahmad

Chhattisgarh HC8 Dec 2022WPC/2051/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Writ Petition, the tenant challenged the eviction order, arguing the notice period under Section 12(2) Schedule 2 was defective. The Court held the notice was valid as it sought possession post-tenancy expiry and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition dismissed; Rent Control Authority directed to expedite restoration of possession to respondent within 30 days.

Sirajuddin Ansari Vs Irfan Ahmad — Landlord and Tenant | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

WPC No. 2051 of 2022

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 2051 of 2022

¶6

Sirajuddin Ansari S/o Mohd. Salimuddin Ansari, Aged About 31 Years R/o Ahmad Colony, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Irfan Ahmad S/o Marhum Abdul Wahid, R/o Ward No. 18, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner :- Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent :- Mr. Adil Minhaj, Advocate

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi Order On Board

¶11

Per Goutam Bhaduri, J.

¶12

08/12/2022

¶13

Heard.

¶14

The instant petition is by the tenant against the judgment passed by the Rent Control Tribunal dated 21.3.2022, wherein the order dated 30.11.2019 passed by the Rent Control Authority, Manendragarh District Koriya was affirmed. The Rent Control Authority passed an order for ejectment as also for payment of arrears of rent from 31.1.2017 at the rate of Rs.4000/-

¶15

As per the case of the petitioner, property comprised of open

¶16

¶17

WPC No. 2051 of 2022

¶18

plot and the shop situated at khasra No.200/13 was obtained on rent on 16.5.2015 for a period of 20 months by the petitioner for motor repairing and servicing. According to the petitioner/ tenant, the period of tenancy was up till 31.1.2017. The landlord served a notice on 24.12.2016 to the tenant whereby the shop and the premises said to be required for the business of elder son. The reply to such notice was made by the tenant on 12.1.2017 wherein it was stated that the notice was served before the expiration of the tenancy and no cause of action would accrue as per Section 12(2) Schedule 2 Clause 11(g) or 11(h) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (in short “the Act, 2011”) which mandates that three months or six months prior notice is required to be served to the tenant to get the premises vacated. It is further case of the petitioner that before the tenancy would come to an end on 31.1.2017, service of prior notice would be in default to above clause. It is next submitted that the Act, 2011 creates the right in favour of the tenant and if the cause of action has not accrued, the petition for eviction would not be maintainable, which both the Court below and tribunal have failed to consider.

¶19

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent / landlord went through the notice which is placed for our perusal and would submit that though the notice was served before 31.1.2017, but, vacant possession of the premises was sought for after the date of expiration i.e., 31.1.2017, therefore, in the case at hand, the submission of the petitioner cannot be appreciated. He further

¶20

¶21

WPC No. 2051 of 2022

¶22

submits that the notice as contemplated under Section 12 (2) Schedule 2 Clause 11 (g) and 11 (h) of the Act, 2011 meant for eviction during the subsistence of the tenancy and tenancy if has expired with the efflux of time, the defence as raised by the petitioner cannot be given a way. He further submits that even otherwise, in the facts of this case, the tenant has shifted his business to some other place, however, has kept the tenanted premises under his possession by putting a lock and no rent has been paid till date, after expiration. He refers to the crossexamination of the tenant and would submit that this fact is admitted that he is carrying out his business at some other place and not at the tenanted premises. Consequently, in all circumstances, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶23

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records.

¶24

According to both the parties, the initial tenancy was commenced on 16.5.2015 for 20 months which was to expire on 31.12017. It is the case of petitioner that before such date of expiration of the tenancy, on 24.12.2016, an eviction notice was served which is placed on record and is marked as Annexure P5. Perusal of the said notice would show that the vacant possession was sought for after the period of tenancy i.e., 31.1.2017 and possession of the premises was specifically sought for from 01.2.2017.

¶25

Section 12 Sub-Section (2) Schedule 2 Clause 11(g) of the Act,

¶26

¶27

WPC No. 2051 of 2022

¶28

2011 which deals with landlord's right available under the Act contemplates that on three months notice to tenant in writing, if the accommodation is required for own occupation and / or occupation by any member of the family, the suit for eviction can be maintained. Likewise, the Clause 11 (h) of it contemplates six months notice in the like nature and thereafter, the eviction proceedings would be maintainable. The eviction notice was replied by the tenant on 12.1.2017 which has been placed on record as Annexure P7 is not in dispute and Clause 12 of Schedule 2 of Section 12(2) of the Act, 2011 purports that right to receive back the accommodation at the end of eviction is vested with the landlord. So the notice dated 24.12.2016, wherein the premises was required from 01.2.2017 would not be against the spirit of Schedule 2 Clause 11 (g) or 11 (h) and filing of the eviction petition, subsequently on 16.10.2017 would automatically ipso facto will satisfy the period which is required to give a notice to the tenant to vacate the premises.

¶29

Forth reading of the Clause 11(g) and 11(h) would show that the right of the landlord has been created to maintain a petition for eviction balancing it with the right of the tenant and sufficient time of three months or six months, as the case may be, is given to find out another premises and right under Clause 12 of Schedule 2 of Section 12(2) of the Act, 2011 further speaks that the landlord would be within his right to claim the possession of the tenanted premises after expiration of the period of tenancy. The tenancy agreement even being not registered, it has been

¶30

¶31

WPC No. 2051 of 2022

¶32

meant to be a directory in nature as held by this Court in WPC No.650/2020 in the matter of Shrawan Kumar Saraf vs. Ravikant Mishra & Ors vide order dated 18.7.2022.

¶33

Taking into consideration the facts of the case, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal dated 21.3.2022. Since the considerable period has passed and taking into consideration the age of the respondent, who has attained the age of senior citizen, we direct the Rent Control Authority, Manendragarh, on an application being filed, to expedite to restore the possession of the respondent within a period of 30 days from the date of application. The respondent shall also be entitled to avail the appropriate remedy as contemplated under the Act, 2011.

¶34

In view of above, the instant petition stands disposed of.

¶35

11.No order as to cost(s).

¶36

SD/SD/( Goutam Bhaduri ) ( N.K. Chandravanshi ) Judge Judge

¶37

Ayushi

Sirajuddin Ansari v. Irfan Ahmad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sirajuddin Ansari v. Irfan Ahmad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamta Sahu Vs Smt. Mamta Sahu

Mamta Sahu Vs Kamta Prasad Sahu

Tokendra Kumar Janghel Vs Uttam And Anr.

Smt. Tikeshwari Chouhan Vs Shri Anil Chouhan

Smt. Chameli Kaushik Vs Smt. Koushilya Bai Patel

Swati @ Rani Vs Parasram @ Akash Dewangan