Amit Gupta Vs Saurabh Natthani

1 - Saurabh Natthani S/o Late Laxmi Narayan Natthani (Wrongly Typed As Narayan Natthani) R/o Saddani Chowk, Sadar Bazar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

2 - Smt. Neelam Devi Gupta W/o Late Ashok Kumar Gupta R/o Anand Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

... Respondent(s)

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Shri Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : None

¶13

DB : Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

Per Sachin Singh Rajput, J.

¶16

14/01/2025

¶17

This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has

¶18

2

¶19

been filed by the petitioner/tenant challenging legality, validity and propriety of order dated 05/08/2024 passed by the C.G.Rent Control Tribunal,Raipur (CG) (for short ‘Tribunal’) in Appeal No.23-A/2024 by which an appeal filed by the petitioner/tenant under Section 13 of the C.G. Rent Control Act, 2011 (for short ‘the Act of 2011’) was dismissed affirming the order dated 01/04/2024 passed by the Rent Controller, Raipur, CG (for short ‘Rent Controller’) in case No.07-90 (6) year 2018-2019 by which the petitioner and respondent No.2/tenant were directed to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed premises to respondent No.1/land lord.

¶20

Facts of this case in nutshell are that an application under Clause 11 (h) of schedule II of Section 12 (2) of the Act of 2011 was filed by respondent No.1/landlord against the petitioner and respondent No.2/tenants before the Rent Controller. As per pleadings of the application, a building owned by respondent No.1/landlord is situated near Manju-Mamta hotel, M.G. Road, Raipur (for short ‘the suit premises’) which was taken on rent by the petitioner and respondent No.2/tenants. The suit premises was taken on rent by the husband of respondent No.2–Smt. Neelam Gupta namely late Ashok Kumar Gupta from the grand father of respondent No.1 namely Late Shri Lakshmi Narayan Nathhani. After the death of Late Laxmi Narayan Nathhani, respondent No.1 and his uncle–Kamal Natthani became the joint owner of the suit property. The petitioner and respondent No.2/tenants without the consent of respondent No.1/landlord altered the suit premises. The petitioner and respondent No.2/tenants did not pay the rent regularly upon which, respondent No.1/landlord through his advocate sent a registered notice dated 13/03/2018 and demanded vacant possession of shop and arrears of rent. After receipt of such notice, the application seeking for vacating

¶21

3

¶22

possession of the suit property and arrears of rent was filed. Respondent No.2 herein Smt. Neelam Gupta was proceeded ex-parte before the Rent Controller. The petitioner/tenant filed the written statement before the Rent Controller. It has been pleaded in the written statement that there is no relationship of land lord and tenant. The Rent Controller does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the application. The petitioner / tenant pleaded that the respondent No.1 / land lord filed a civil suit earlier for eviction of Amit Ice Cream Parlour before the Rent Controller which was dismissed on 01/03/2018 and therefore, the application of the respondent No.1/landlord be dismissed.

¶23

The Rent Controller on the basis of above broad pleadings framed issues. The respondent No.1 / land lord examined as many as witnesses. The petitioner/ tenant despite giving opportunity did not examine any witness. Learned Rent Controller on due appreciation of material before it allowed the application of respondent No.1/ land lord and directed that within a period of one month from the date of order i.e. 01/04/2024, the petitioner and respondent No.2 / tenants were directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property. The order of the Rent Controller was subject to challenge by the petitioner / tenant before the learned Tribunal. By the impugned order, the appeal filed by the petitioner / tenant was dismissed which led to filing of this writ petition.

¶24

Shri Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the petitioner / tenant argued that the petitioner / tenant was not afforded proper opportunity to lead evidence and hearing. He submits that the petitioner / tenant filed two separate applications, one under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC and another under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. Those applications were heard by the presiding officer of the Rent Controller on 15/12/2023. The case was adjourned on couple of occasions but orders on such

¶25

4

¶26

applications could not be passed and the presiding officer who had heard the applications was transferred. Thereafter, the new presiding officer vide its order dated 07/03/2024 dismissed the applications of the petitioner / tenant without giving an opportunity of hearing. He submits that the present presiding officer could not have decided the applications as he had not heard argument on such applications. Even otherwise, he submits that correctness, validity and judicial propriety of order dated 07/03/2024 can be challenged along with the impugned order in the light of Section 105 of CPC. He submits that the learned Rent Controller committed an error of law in rejecting the applications of the petitioner/ tenant thereby caused prejudice to the petitioner / tenant. The defence of no relationship of land lord and tenant between the petitioner/tenant and respondent No.1/landlord could not be proved before the Rent Controller. He submits that the argument was advanced before the Tribunal which did commit illegality and jurisdictional error in not exceeding the argument of the petitioner / tenant while rejecting the appeal filed by him. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal may be set aside.

¶27

Countering the above submission, Shri Shalvik Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.1 / land lord submits that perusal of order sheet dated 07/03/2024 clearly indicates that the arguments of both the parties were heard and thereafter, the order was passed by the Rent Controller. He further submits that the order does not suffer from any patent illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. He submits that it is not a case that the petitioner / tenant was not afforded proper opportunity of hearing or to prove his defence. The petitioner / tenant was given ample opportunity to examine his witnesses which he failed to do. He submits that while deciding the issues framed, learned Rent

¶28

5

¶29

Controller gave a categorical finding that there is a land lord and tenant relationship between the parties and the land lord is entitled for relief of obtaining the vacant possession of the suit premises. This finding of fact has been affirmed by the learned Tribunal. The argument with regard to not providing with sufficient opportunity to prove the case and decision making on the interlocutory applications without being heard has been dealt with by the learned Tribunal and with a reasoned order, the same has been rejected. He further submits that the finding of fact recorded by the learned Rent Controller as well as by the learned Tribunal does not require any interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court as there is no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders. Therefore, he prays that the writ petition may be dismissed.

¶30

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶31

The first contention of Shri Paranjpe is that the argument regarding interlocutory applications heard by the previous presiding officer of Rent Controller and the same was decided by the present presiding officer of the Rent Controller cannot be accepted. The perusal of order sheets appended with the writ petition clearly envisages that the argument of such interlocutory applications were earlier heard by the previous presiding officer however, the order sheet dated 07/03/2024 clearly spells out that the present presiding officer of the Rent Controller has heard the argument of both the parties. The order dated 07/03/2024 had considered the contents of the interlocutory applications and also reply of such application. The sanctity of the order cannot be doubted as it has dealt with the contents of the application and the reply and argument advanced by both the parties. Therefore, the submission of Shri Paranjpe cannot hold water and is liable

¶32

6

¶33

to be rejected.

¶34

On perusal of order sheet dated 07/03/2024, it is quite vivid that the interlocutory applications were decided on merits holding therein that the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC cannot be accepted in the light of proviso to it. It has also been observed by the Rent Controller that the evidence of the landlord in the case was closed on 01/05/2023 and thereafter, on two occasions, the tenant was granted time for recording the evidence. Considering this, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was dismissed. Likewise the documents which the tenant wanted to produce before the Rent Controller vide application under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC was rejected on the ground that the same has been filed belatedly to prolong the litigation. The learned Rent Controller gave his thoughtful consideration on these two interlocutory applications and dismissed the same and in the opinion of this Court, there is no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 07/03/2024. Therefore, the contention of Shri Paranjpe on merits of these applications is also rejected.

¶35

The other contention of Shri Paranjpe is that proper opportunity to prove his case and to lead evidence was not given. The order sheets appended with the writ petition demonstrates that the application was filed by respondent No.1/land lord on 05/10/2018. It remained pending for a considerable period of time. On 01/05/2023, respondent No.1 / land lord examined her witnesses and the matter was posted for recording evidence of the petitioner / tenant. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on couple of occasions and it was posted on 28/11/2023 for evidence of the petitioner / tenant. On that day, adjournment was sought for recording evidence on behalf of the petitioner / tenant and the matter was posted on 11/12/2023 for recording evidence of the petitioner / tenant. On that day, again

¶36

7

¶37

adjournment was sought by the petitioner / tenant and the matter was listed on 14/12/2023. On 14/12/2023, the interlocutory applications were filed which were ultimately dismissed by the Rent Controller on 07/03/2024. The Rent Controller gave last opportunity to the petitioner / tenant to lead evidence and the matter was listed on 15/03/2024. On that day also, no witness was examined by the petitioner / tenant and right to lead evidence was closed by the Rent Controller. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner / tenant was not granted opportunity of hearing. Learned Tribunal considered the arguments advanced by the petitioner / land lord and dealt with it and by a reasoned order, rejected the same. The finding of fact with regard to land lord and tenant relationship and entitlement of the land lord to obtain possession of the suit premises recorded by the learned Rent Controller which has been affirmed by the learned Tribunal, cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the evidence and material available on record. On the basis of above discussion, this Court does not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶38

At this stage, Shri Paranjpe submits that the tenant is earning his livelihood from the suit premises and some breathing time may be granted to vacate the premises.

¶39

The petitioner / tenant shall vacate the suit premises by 30/04/2025.

¶40

Sd/Sd/-

¶41

(Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE JUDGE

¶42

Deepti

¶43

Digitally signed DEEPTI by DEEPTIHARIKUMAR HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.01.21 13:29:36 +0530

Amit Gupta v. Saurabh Natthani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Gupta v. Saurabh Natthani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neeraj Jaiswal Vs (Deleted) State of Chhattisgarh

A.P. Tripathi Vs Union of India

A.P. Tripathi Vs Union of India

Md. Ashraf S/O Md. Harun (Deleted Since Died) through Lrs (a) Mohammad Soyab Vs Md. Anish

Zareen Siddiqui Vs Smt. Usha Shrivastav

Smt. Soniya Mishra Vs Satyendra Mishra