(2) read with schedule 2 (k) (M) (t) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (for short ‘Act of 2011’) before the Rent Control Authority, Bilaspur seeking eviction of the petitioner from the premises situated at Nazul Sheet No.27, Plot No.193/2 Khaparganj, Bilaspur admeasuring 750 sq.ft. (for short ‘suit property’). An application under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) was filed by the petitioner inter alia pleading that in the light of Section 3 of the Act of 2011, the application is not maintainable. It has been further pleaded in the application that the Collector is shown to be the President and Chief Medical Health Officer (CMHO) is shown to be the Secretary of the respondent and both officers are under the State Government and therefore, in the light of Section 3 of the Act of 2011, the application is not maintainable. It has been further pleaded that the Rent Controller is an officer in the cadre of Deputy Collector, therefore, under the principles of natural justice, a person cannot be a judge of his own cause. It has been further pleaded that the Collector is stated to be the President of the respondent and for the suit property, the application for eviction would be tried by a Deputy Collector, hence, the Rent Controller (Deputy Collector) has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. It has been further pleaded that as per the judgment dated 21/04/2010 passed in Civil Suit No.73-A/2005, the respondent was directed by a decree of mandatory injunction to execute a fresh rent agreement, however, despite of passing of 14 years, no new rent agreement was executed, hence, the rent could not be paid. The rent sent by the old rate was returned by the respondent as a result of which, the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant of the suit property, therefore, prima facie , the landlord– tenant relationship has not been proved and the application is not maintainable before the Rent Controller.
