Suresh Kumar Jaiswal Vs Vivek Shrimal

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:16507-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WP227 No. 123 of 2023

¶6

Suresh Kumar Jaiswal S/o Late Bhaiyalal Jaiswal Aged About 70 Years R/o In Front Of Shree Ram Temple, Manendragarh District- Koria Now District- Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur, District : Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

Vivek Shrimal S/o Late Vikram Singh Shrimal Aged About 49 Years R/o Vth Floor, Kabinth Appartment, Mowa, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Adil Minhaj, Advocate

¶11

DB: Hon’ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey

¶12

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput ORDER ON BOARD

¶13

Per Sachin Singh Rajput, J

¶14

08.04.2025

¶15

This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 28.11.2022 passed by Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur (CG) in Appeal No.25-A/2022 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 12.03.2021 passed by the Rent Controller, Manendragarh District Koriya (CG) in Revenue Case No.01/A-90(1) Year 2016-17 was dismissed.

¶16

The petitioner is hereinafter referred to landlord and the respondent is hereinafter referred to tenant.

¶17

Facts of the case reflects that the petitioner/ landlord has constructed a complex named as Jaiswal Complex for residential and commercial purpose. Two shops of the said complex were given on rent to the respondent/ tenant on monthly rent of

¶18

2

¶19

Rs.5000/- each total Rs.10,000/- by a rent agreement dated 02.08.2002 for coming 10 years. The tenant had accepted a 10% increase in the monthly rent after the completion of every 3 years. The rent is being paid time to time by the tenant however payment was not regular. The landlord vacated both the shops on 24.05.2015 and went to Raipur. The landlord sent a registered notice to the tenant through his advocate on 16.07.2015 demanding remaining rent. Despite service of notice, the tenant did not pay the outstanding rent to the landlord, therefore, for recovery of rent of Rs.4,45,345/-, an application under Section 9 (1) of the CG Rent Control Act, 2011 was filed before the Rent Controller, Manendragarh, District Koriya (CG).

¶20

The reply to the application submitted by the tenant. Barring the admitted facts, rest of the averments of the application was denied. A specific pleading was made by the tenant that there is a difference in the document i.e. rent agreement dated 27.08.2014 filed before the Rent Controller is different from the agreement supplied with documents to the tenant. It has been further pleaded that the application is filed beyond limitation and is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable.

¶21

On the basis of above broad pleadings, learned Rent Controller formulated the following issues:-

¶22

I. Whether the applicant is the owner of the suit building ?

¶23

ii. Whether the applicant is entitled to receive Rs. 4,45,345/- rent from the respondent?

¶24

In order to substantiate the pleadings, the landlord examined himself and other witnesses namely Vishnu Prasad Jaiswal, Ritesh Kumar Jain and Thakur Prasad Keshari. The tenant examined himself as the only witness.

¶25

After due assessment of the evidence available on record, learned Rent Controller dismissed the application of the landlord vide order dated 12.03.2021 which was subject to challenge before the Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Learned Rent Control Tribunal dismissed the appeal by the impugned order which led to filing of this writ petition.

¶26

3

¶27

Learned counsel for the landlord argued that learned Rent Controller as well as Rent Control Tribunal have committed an error of law in fact in dismissing the application of the landlord. He further submits that the evidence of landlord has not been appreciated in its true and proper perspective by the Rent Controller and Rent Control Tribunal as well. The landlord was able to prove by cogent and prudent evidence that he is entitled to receive the unpaid rent amounting to Rs. 4,45,345/which has wrongly been denied by the Rent Controller as well by Rent Control Tribunal. Therefore, he submits that the writ petition may be allowed and impugned orders may be set aside granting relief as claimed in the application.

¶28

Per contra, learned counsel for the tenant argued that the landlord was not able to prove that he is entitled to receive the remaining rent. He submits that the tenant has already vacated the suit premises in due course of time and the rent till vacation has already been paid and the same fact has also been admitted by the witnesses of the landlord. The learned Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Tribunal categorically gave a finding that the landlord is not entitled to receive Rs.4,45,345/from the tenant, this is a finding of fact and it does not appear the finding so arrived is perverse or contrary to the evidence on record. He further submits that there is no perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders and no interference is warranted on concurrent finding of facts in the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India, therefore, the writ petition has no merit and liable to be dismissed.

¶29

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the record meticulously.

¶30

Issue No.1 is with regard to ownership of the suit properties. As the learned Rent Controller while deciding the issue assesses the evidence on record. As per version of the tenant he had never executed rent agreement with the landlord. It was the case of tenant that he was actually the tenant of one Bhaiyalal Jaiswal. It is brought on record that Bhiayalal Jaiswal has passed away in the year 2012. It is also available on record that no written information was sent by the landlord to the tenant in this

¶31

4

¶32

regard, the landlord has admitted that there are 5 legal heirs of deceased Bhaiyalal and no document has been filed to demonstrate as in whose share, the shops have been fallen.

¶33

From the record it also appears that the landlord has also accepted that after the rent agreement dated 02.08.2012 came to an end, no renewal was made. He also admitted that till 02.08.2012, the tenant was not his tenant. Learned Rent Controller gave a finding of fact that until and unless by documentary evidence it is not established that as to which shop has fallen in share of 5 legal heirs of deceased Bhaiyalal, the landlord cannot be held to be owner of two shops (suit premises) constructed in Jaiswal complex, hence, the landlord was not able to prove that he is the owner of two shops and decided the issue against the petitioner, this finding of fact has also been affirmed by learned Rent Tribunal. From the record it also appears that the tenant occupied the suit shops from one Bhaiyalal S/o Bachalal Jaiswal on 02.08.2002 and an agreement to that effect was executed on 22.06.2005 which is also reflected from the statement of respondent/tenant. The receipt of payment of rent is also exhibited which goes to show that the rent was being paid. Hence the finding recorded after death of Bhaiyalal as held by Rent Controller affirmed by Rent Control Tribunal that the landlord could not prove that he is the owner of two shops and it has fallen in share of the legal heirs of Bhaiyalal Jaiswal, this is finding of fact recorded after meticulous assessment of the evidence on record which in the opinion of this Court cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the evidence and is hereby affirmed.

¶34

The issue No.2 was framed with regard to entitlement of the landlord to receive Rs.4,45,345/- as rent from the tenant. While deciding this issue, the learned Rent Controller assessed the evidence on record and gave a categorical finding that witness Ritesh Jain has admitted that in the month of November, 2014, the tenant has vacated the shop. He also admitted that the tenant of Bhaiyalal Jaiswal started a business at Raipur after vacating the suit shops. He further admitted that the tenant has improved the shops by installing tin shed, both shutter, glasses and tiles by his

¶35

5

¶36

own cost and worth of these items is about two lakhs rupees and nothing has been taken back by the tenant while vacating the suit shops. This witness also admitted that before the tenant vacated the shop, due to the dispute over increase in rent, he had already asked to settle the accounts. He further admitted that Rs. 50,000/- was paid in cash to the landlord and on the call of the landlord after vacating the shop, the tenant had returned to Manendragarh in December 2014 and left the articles like tin shed, both shutters, glasses and tiles in favour of landlord for settlement of dispute amongst them and on payment of Rs. 1 lakh to landlord, they settled their accounts. The other witness examined by landlord clearly deposed that they don’t have any knowledge about dispute of rent between landlord and tenant.

¶37

Considering all aspect of the matter, learned Rent Controller came to a conclusion that the landlord is not entitled to receive the rent as prayed and dismissed the application of landlord by recording a categorical finding of fact. This finding recorded by the Rent Controller was also affirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal. From assessment of the evidence on record, it appears that originally he was the tenant of Bhaiyalal Jaiswal and landlord could not prove that the suit shops have fallen in his share after death of Bhaiyalal and as such, the dispute with regard to rent between landlord and tenant has come to a rest in light of evidence of Ritesh Jain. It has also been proved that in the month of November, 2014, the suit shops were vacated by the tenant. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the landlord is not able to make out a case for interference in the finding of facts recorded by Rent Controller and Rent Control Tribunal in supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

¶38

Thus, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶39

No order as to costs.

¶40

Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Parul Digitally signed by PARUL PARUL MITTAL MITTAL Date: 2025.04.24 14:27:32 +0530

Suresh Kumar Jaiswal v. Vivek Shrimal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar Jaiswal v. Vivek Shrimal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Preetram Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Union of India Vs Guha

Union of India Vs Dasarath

Rakesh Kumar Jaiswal Vs Shri Ajay Kumar Dhal

Union of India Vs Kislal

Kavilas Vs State of Chhattisgarh