Manuraj Pachouri Vs Akhilesh Kumar Sahu

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:10072-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 4483 of 2024

¶6

1. Manuraj Pachouri S/o S. N. Pachouri Aged About 49 Years R/o Vivekanand Nagar, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari, C.G. (Tenant)

¶7

2. Rajnish Pachouri S/o S. N. Pachouri Aged About 48 Years R/o Vivekanand Nagar, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari, C.G. (Tenant)

¶8

... Petitioners

¶9

versus

¶10

1. Akhilesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri P. B. Sahu Aged About 58 Years R/o House No. 23, Wallfort Paradise, Kandul, District- Raipur, C.G. (Landlord)

¶11

2. Smt Kusum Sahu W/o Shri Akhilesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 57 Years R/o House No. 23, Wallfort Paradise, Kandul, District- Raipur, C.G. (Landlord)

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

For Petitioners : Ms. Harshita Pandey, Advocate For Respondents : Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate

¶14

{Hon’ble (Smt.) Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}

¶15

(Order in Chamber dated 28/02/2025)

¶16

Per Sachin Singh Rajput, J

¶17

This petition has been filed against the order dated 28.06.2024 passed by Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, CG (Annexure P-1) in Appeal No.70A/2023 by which the appeal filed against the order dated 05.10.2023 passed by Rent Controller, Dhamtari in Case No. 202104130400015/A-90(1) year 2020-21, has been dismissed.

¶18

Facts in short : The respondents-landlords filed an application under sections 10 and

¶19

2

¶20

12 of Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (for short “Act of 2011”) for handing over the vacant possession of the rented house and for making payment of arrears of rent. The house in dispute situated in PH No. 33, Khasra No. 69/47, 71 admeasuring 0.020 hectare Vivekanand Nagar, Dhamtari. The said property was purchased by respondents/landlords vide registered sale deed dated 27.07.1996 in which the petitioners/tenants were living as tenant prior thereto by paying the rent of Rs. 8,000/- per month from 2009 to 2017. Thereafter, they stopped making payment of the rent. The respondents/landlords then sought for eviction of the petitioners/tenants from the disputed house as they wanted it for their personal use and also requested for arrears of rent by filing an application under Sections 10 and 12 of the Act of 2011. The respondents/landlord sent a notice dated 17.10.2020 to the petitioners/tenant through advocate to hand over the vacation possession of the suit house within two months therefrom, but they refused to accept the notice nor did they respond thereto. In the application it was pleaded that the respondents/landlords being in the age group of 55-60 bona fide needed the suit house the most and by not handing over the vacant possession the petitioners/tenants are putting to them to a great mental agony.

¶21

The petitioners/tenants appeared before the Rent Controller and filed an application under Section 11 of the CPC stating therein that the respondents/landlords had never given him the disputed house on rent. Before that, the petitioners/tenants had also filed a suit under Section 37 of the Act of 2011 which was registered as Suit No. 18-A/90(1) 2017-2018 which came to be decided on 29.11.2018. In the preliminary objection thereto, the respondents/landlords has admitted that the petitioners are not their tenants, there was no rent agreement between them, and they had illegally encroached upon the disputed house.

¶22

The petitioner/tenant in the reply to the application moved by the respondent/landlord denied the averments made therein. It was pleaded that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and therefore, the order of the Rent Controller affirmed by the Tribunal by the order impugned, is bad in law. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the respective parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues:-

¶23

3

¶24

(i) Whether the application filed is within the jurisdiction of this Court?

¶25

(ii) whether the relationship of landlord and tenant is established between the applicants and the non-applicants?

¶26

(iii) Whether the application is worth acceptance under the provisions of the Rent Control Act?

¶27

(iv) Other reliefs, if any,?

¶28

Both the parties led their evidence to establish their case. Rent Controller vide its order dated 05.10.2023 partly allowed the application of respondents/landlords and directed the petitioners/tenants for handing over the vacant possession of the suit house constructed in Khasra No. 69/47, 71, area 0.020 along with the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1,08,500 to the respondents/landlords within one month therefrom, and the delay in doing so the rent till the vacation of the house, would be required to be paid.

¶29

Challenging the said order dated 05.10.2023 the petitioners/tenants preferred the appeal under Section 13 of the Act of 2011 before the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) which after hearing the parties dismissed the same by the order under challenge in this petition dated 28.06.2024.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants submits that the findings recorded by the Rent Controller as also that of the Tribunal are perverse and contrary to law. He submits that both the Courts below have failed to consider that in the earlier suit the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties has been decided in favour of the petitioners/tenants. He submits that both the Courts below have not considered the documents on record in its proper perspective and therefore the findings of both the courts below are liable to be set aside.

¶31

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/landlords supports the order impugned to be just and proper having been passed on the basis of material

¶32

4

¶33

available on record, which requires no interference by this Court.

¶34

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶35

As regards Issue No. 1 framed by the Rent Controller with respect to its jurisdiction, as the suit property is situated in Dhamtari, it has been decided in positive in view of the provisions of Section 1 of the Act of 2011. As regards issue No.2 pertaining to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the respondents, learned Rent Controller on the basis of material available on record in particular the evidence of the petitioners/tenants, has held the petitioners-tenants to have not paid the rent and thus violated provisions of schedule 2 of Section 12 (2) of the Act of 2011, and thus decided this issue in favour of the respondents/landlords. As regards issue Nos. 3, learned Rent Controller has arrived at the conclusion that the monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- from April 2021 up to October 2023 took the arrears of 31 months to Rs. 01,08,500/- which remained unpaid by the petitioners/tenants, and thus decided this issue in positive. As regards issue No.4, it has been decided by the Rent Controller in negative in view of the discussion made in paragraphs 11.2 and 11.3 of its order dated 05.10.2023. Finally, the Rent Controller by passing the impugned order has directed the petitioners/tenants to hand over the vacant possession of the suit house and also make the payment of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 01.08,500/- to the respondents-landlords within a period of one month from that day, and delay in doing so would make them liable to pay the rent till the vacant possession is handed over. The appeal against the said order of the Rent Controller, has also been dismissed by the order impugned.

¶36

The view taken by the Rent Controller subsequently affirmed in appeal by learned Tribunal thus appears to be based on due appreciation of the material available on record and the relevant legal provisions, therefore, this Court does not find any scope of interference therewith in this petition. Being this, the petition fails and is dismissed as such.

¶37

5

¶38

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners requests for some breathing time to hand over the vacant possession. As counsel for the respondent did not object thereto so seriously, the petitioners can hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises on or before 31.05.2025.

¶39

Petition is thus dismissed but without any cost.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

( Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge

¶43

Jyotishi

¶44

Digitally
signed by
AVANISH
AVANISH JYOTISHI
JYOTISHI Date:2025.03.04
16:07:15
+0530

Manuraj Pachouri v. Akhilesh Kumar Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manuraj Pachouri v. Akhilesh Kumar Sahu

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

Union of India Vs Bharat Lal Patel

Union of India Vs Iradhar Prasad Sahu

Balram Kodwani Vs Smt. Reema Sahu W/o Shri Naresh Sahu

Union of India Vs Sunder Lal Sahu

Rajesh Jyushtin Toppo Vs Smt. Reshma Kujur

Rajesh Gupta Vs Santoshi