The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging an ejectment order. It held that non-framing of issues was not fatal as parties fully aided in evidence. The Court allowed eviction on a 6-month notice consistent with senior citizen status of both parties.
Ejectment order affirmed; tenant granted 45 days to vacate.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 4764 of 2022
Versus
| For Petitioner | : | Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate |
|---|---|---|
| For Respondent | : | Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate |
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri
Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi
Order on Board
Per Goutam Bhaduri, J.
12/12/2022
Heard.
17.10.2022 , passed by the C.G. Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur. Learned Rent Control Tribunal by its order has affirmed the ejectment order dated 10.02.2021, passed by the Rent Control
2
Authority, Dhamtari.
3
submits that apart from the grounds stated under clause 11 (h) of Schedule 2 of Act of 2011, the petition was filed by the landlord on the ground that tenant has caused substantial damage to the accommodation as enumerated under clause 11 (b) of Schedule 2 and has become social nuisance as per clause 11 (d) of Schedule 2 of Act of 2011, therefore, 6 months notice was mandatory but before that the petition was filed. He further submits that with respect to the other two shops the respondent (land-lord) got them vacated and further let it out to other tenants at higher prices. He further submits that it would also effect the need projected by the respondent. He further submits that when this issue was placed before the learned Rent Control Authority with the proof of such fact, the same was dismissed without any application of mind. Consequently, there has been failure in exercise of jurisdiction by the Rent Control Authority and Rent Control Tribunal and the order of ejectment requires interference by this Court.
4
case for the reason that the respondent (land-lord) is a senior citizen, therefore only one month notice would be required as per Section 12 (2) Schedule 2 clause 11 (h) of the Act of 2011, therefore, the order passed is well merited and do not call for any interference.
(a) XXX
(b) If the tenant causes, or allows to be caused, substantial damage to the accommodation, for any reason whatsoever.
(c) If the tenant uses the accommodation for purpose(s) other than that for which it was leased out.
(d) If the tenant becomes a social nuisance.
(e) XXX
(f) XXX
5
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 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, person coming to physical or mental handicap, and senior citizens (above the age of 65 years).
' 13. In 2011 (11) SCC 786 (Kalyan Singh Chouhan v.
6
C.P. Joshi), the main dispute was whether one lady had cast her vote twice under two different names and whether the tendered votes cast in the election must be counted and whether six votes polled against the tendered votes must be rejected. In that case also margin of victory was only one vote. A prayer was made to summon certain documents with regard to the tendered votes. This prayer was rejected on the ground that these facts were not pleaded and no issue had been framed in respect of those tendered votes. An appeal was filed before the Apex Court wherein the elected candidate urged that the election petition has to be adjudicated strictly adhering to the statutory provisions and the Court cannot permit a party to lead evidence unless an issue has been framed on the controversy and an issue cannot be framed unless there are actual pleadings in respect thereof. We are not concerned with the second part because there is no allegation in the present case that the pleadings are lacking material particulars. The only allegation is that no issue was framed. With regard to non-framing of issues, the Apex Court in the said judgment held as follows:-
“25. The object of framing issues is to ascertain/shorten the area of dispute and pinpoint the points required to be determined by the court. The issues are framed so that no
7
party at the trial is taken by surprise. It is the issues fixed and not the pleadings that guide the parties in the matter of adducing evidence.
XXX XXX XXX
14.This view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in 2014 (5) SCC 312 (Arikala Narasa Reddy v. Venkata Ram Reddy Reddygari &Another) as follows :
“16. There may be an exceptional case where the parties proceed to trial fully knowing the rival case and lead all the evidence not only in support of their contentions but in refutation of the case set up by the other side. Only in such circumstances, absence of an issue may not be fatal and a party may not be permitted to submit that there has been a mistrial and the proceedings stood vitiated."
8
factually no dispute arises that the parties knowing full well the rival claims went into for adjudication and no prejudice was caused as the issue was confined to a limited extent. Therefore, the order which was passed by the learned Rent Control Authority on 05.08.2020, that the application was filed after the parties closed their evidence appears to be justified for the reason no prejudice was caused to the either parties. Now with respect to the issuance of notice in accordance with Section 12 (2) Schedule 2 clause 11 (h) of the Act of 2011, it states that " when the accommodation is sought for own use by the land-lord who belong to special category the period of notice is to be of 1 month and the special category includes senior citizens also who are aged above 65 years ". It is not in dispute that the land-lord and the tenant both are more than 65 years of age, therefore, when the notice has been served invoking the clause 11 (h) it would envelope the other cause also i.e. a senior citizen has served the notice seeking eviction on the ground supra.
9
any obligation to assign any reason to get the premises vacate would be maintainable but on the condition that the accommodation is not let out for higher rent for a period of 12 months thereafter. Therefore, the respondent (land-lord) would be obliged to follow such mandate. The application filed by the land-lord would show that categorical statement was made that for 12 months, she would not let out the shop for higher rate after getting it vacated. Having regard to such statement made in the application the conditions of Section 12 (2) Schedule 2 clause 11 (h) have been satisfied. Therefore, in our view after going through entire records, pleadings and evidence, we do not find any cause is made out for any interference. Further, taking into the fact that tenant (petitioner) appears to be senior citizen further 45 days from today is granted to him to vacate the shop.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Goutam Bhaduri) (N.K. Chandravanshi)
Judge Judge
Jyoti
10
Headlines
In an exceptional case when parties proceed to trial knowing the rival case and lead all evidence, absence of issue may not be fatal.
,d viokfnd ekeysa esa tc i{kdkjx.k fojks/kh i{kdkj ds izdj.k dks tkurs gq, fopkj.k gsrq vxzlj gksrs gS rFkk lHkh lk{;ksa dks izLrqr djrs gS rc izdj.k esa fook/kd iz'u dh vuqifLFkfr ?kkrd ugha gks ldrh gSA
3 issues framed by the court
Whether non-framing of issues vitiated the ejectment proceedings when parties proceeded knowing the rival case.
Whether the 6-month notice requirement applies to senior citizen landlords seeking eviction under the 2011 Act.
Whether the landlord satisfied the conditions of not leasing the premises at a higher rent for 12 months.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Santosh Kumar Nishad Vs. State of C.G. and Ors.Referred¶8
2016 SCC OnLine Chh 2160 : AIR 2016 Chh 1640 · Who else cites this
Arikala Narasa Reddy Vs. Venkata Ram Reddy ReddygariReferred¶8
AIR 2014 SCC 1290 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dayaldas Chawla
Smt. Rubi Mohit Nathon
Goutam Bhaduri
N.K. Chandravanshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
