Sahinder Pal Singh Bhatia Vs M/S Sanjari Enterprises

¶1

Page No.1 of 5 IN WPC-1518-2025

¶2

Digitally SAIFAN signed by KHAN SAIFAN KHAN

¶3

2026:CGHC:1605-DB

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 1518 of 2025

¶7

Sahinder Pal Singh Bhatia S/o Trilochan Singh Bhatia Aged About 61 Years R/o In Front Of Kailasha Rungta And Ayodhya Building, Deepak Nagar, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

1 - M/s Sanjari Enterprises Besides Chhattisgarh Housing Board Complex, Malviya Nagar, Durg, Through Partner K. Fazal Faruki, S/o Late M.U. Faruki, Aged About 55 Years, R/o 33, Anand Nagar, Utai Road, Besided Cantral Jail, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

[Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)]

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate Respondent : Mr. Aishwarya Kumar Dubey, Advocate

¶14

Division Bench

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

Order on Board

12.01.2026

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

This writ petition filed by the petitioner/tenant under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned order dated 24.01.2025, passed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur (for short the “Tribunal”), whereby his appeal has been

¶20

Page No.2 of 5 IN WPC-1518-2025

¶21

dismissed and order dt. 18.08.2023, passed by the Rent Controller, Durg, directing eviction of the suit premises to the petitioner herein has been affirmed.

¶22

The aforesaid challenge has been made by the petitioner on the following factual backdrop:

¶23

2.1 The respondent-Landlord filed an application for eviction under Section 12(2) read with sub-para (h) of Sr. No.11 appended with Schedule 2 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (for short the “Act of 2011”) stating, inter-alia, that he is landlord of the suit accommodation bearing 02 shops, situated at Sanjari Arcade, Malviya Nagar, Durg, which were rented out by the the respondent for a monthly rent of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner/tenant. The said tenancy was a monthly and the petitioner/tenant used to run business of ice-cream parlor in it. Thereafter, the respondent/landlord issued a notice of termination of said tenancy on expiry of 6 months of the said notice to the petitioner on 25.09.2014, which was received by him on 27.09.2014 and, ultimately, on 06.07.2015, when the suit premises were not vacated, the respondent-landlord filed application for eviction before the learned Rent Controller, Durg claiming therein that since he has already served 6 months’ prior notice to the petitioner/tenant for termination of tenancy, he is entitled for eviction of the suit premises. The aforesaid application has been opposed by the petitioner/tenant by filing reply. It has also been stated by the petitioner/tenant in his

¶24

Page No.3 of 5 IN WPC-1518-2025

¶25

reply that he is entitled for an amount of Rs.1.50 lac, which he deposited as security to the respondent-landlord.

¶26

2.2 The learned Rent Controller after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, clearly came to the conclusion that 6 months’ notice has already been served by the respondent/landlord, as required under Section 12(2) read with subpara (h) of Sr. No.11 appended with Schedule 2 of the Act of 2011, therefore, the petitioner/tenant is liable to vacate the suit premises, however, the respondent-Landlord will not lease out the suit accommodation at a higher rent for atleast 12 months from the date of getting possession of the same and Rs.1.50 lac shall have to be immediately paid to the petitioner/tenant after the suit premises is vacated, whereas, respondent-landlord will be entitled for rent as damages till vacation of the suit premises. Feeling aggrieved, against the said order, the petitioner/tenant filed an appeal under Section 13 of the Act of 2011 before the learned Tribunal, which also stood dismissed finding no merit vide impugned order dt. 24.01.2025. Against which, this writ petition has been preferred.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant submits that both the authorities below are absolutely unjustified in granting order of eviction in favour of the respondent/landlord by recording findings which are perverse and contrary to the record. Therefore, the present writ petition be allowed by setting aside both the order passed by the authorities below.

¶28

Page No.4 of 5 IN WPC-1518-2025

¶29

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would support the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of this petition.

¶30

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, considered his rival submission made herein above and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

¶31

At the very outset, it would be appropriate to notice sub-para (h) of Sr. No.11 appended with Schedule 2 under Section 12(2) of the of the Act of 2011, which reads as under:

¶32

“ 11. Right to seek from the Rent Controller eviction of the tenant on the following grounds;

¶33

(a) to (g) xxxxx

¶34

(h) On 6 months notice to the tenant in writing, without 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:”

¶35

In the case at hand, a careful perusal of the record would show that the learned Rent Controller, Durg clearly recorded a finding that the respondent-landlord sent notice of eviction of the suit premises to the petitioner-tenant on 25.09.2014 vide Ex.P/03, which was received by him on 27.09.2014. The said notice stood expired on completion of 6 months i.e. on 27.03.2015 and, thereafter, application for eviction has been filed on 06.07.2015, as such, statutory requirement for serving 6 months’ prior notice, enumerated under sub-para (h) of Sr. No.11 appended with Schedule 2 under Section

¶36

Page No.5 of 5 IN WPC-1518-2025

¶37

12(2) of the of the Act of 2011, has clearly been fulfilled by the respondent-landlord, therefore, he is entitled for grant of eviction of the suit premises. The aforesaid finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller has further been affirmed by the Tribunal vide impugned order dt. 24.01.2025. Since, other findings are not under challenge and relationship between the petitioner and the respondent to be that to tenant and landlord has also been established, in the considered opinion of this Court, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the authorities below in granting order of eviction of the suit premises in favour of the respondent/landlord. We hereby hold accordingly.

¶38

In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. It deserves to be and is hereby dismissed . However, at the request of learned counsel for the parties, the amount of Rs.1.50 lac, taken by the respondent/landlord as advance/security deposit, shall be adjusted from the amount of outstanding rent, if any. The petitioner/tenant shall vacate the suit premises within a period of 60 days’ from today subject to furnishing an undertaking on affidavit before the learned Rent Controller, Durg that he will vacate the suit premises after completion of 60 days and will not part possession of the suit premises to anyone except the respondent/landlord within aforesaid period.

¶39

s@if Sd/sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Judge

Sahinder Pal Singh Bhatia v. M/S Sanjari Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahinder Pal Singh Bhatia v. M/S Sanjari Enterprises

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

Vinay Yadav @ Pangul Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hirachand Panika Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ravi Kumar Prajapati Vs State Of Chhattisgarh