SANGEETA AGRAWAL Vs. NARAYAN RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 06.02.2020 passed by Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Appeal No.29-A/2019 whereby the Tribunal dismissed the application for vacating the stay order dated 29.07.2019 and application for dismissal of appeal itself for nonpayment of rent.

(2.) Facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition, are that, petitioner is landlord of a double-story building situated at Gandhi Chowk, Bihari Talkies Road, Ward No.31, Bilaspur District Bilaspur. Ground floor of accommodation was given on rent to the respondent/tenant for running business of Restaurant on a monthly rent of Rs.7,000/-. The petitioner/landlord after lapse of sometime asked the respondent/tenant to vacate the premise for his personal need (i.e. for opening of business of paint shop for her elder son Avinash Agrawal in ground floor and clinic for the younger son (Doctor) in first floor), but, when request did not yield any result, petitioner/landlord filed an application for eviction before the Rent Controlling Authority, Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as 'RCA'). The RCA after hearing both the parties, allowed the application, passed an order of eviction on 19.06.2019 against the respondent/tenant. The respondent/tenant challenged the oder of eviction passed by RCA before the Rent Controlling Tribunal along with an application of stay. Tribunal passed an order of stay in favour of respondent therein on 19.07.2019. Thereafter, petitioner/landlord moved an application for vacating of stay oder dated 29.07.2019 (Annexure P/2) stating therein that respondent/tenant has not deposited rent from the date of filing application for eviction and obtained interim order of stay. He also filed another application for dismissal of appeal itself on the ground of non-payment of regular rent on 15th of each month. The Tribunal heard both the applications and decided the same on 06.02.2020, dismissed the same to be infructuous as the respondent/tenant has deposited entire rent upto January 2020. This made the petitioner/landlord to approach this Court by filing instant writ petition.

(3.) Shri K. A. Ansari, learned senior counsel for the petitioner/landlord submits that respondent/tenant has not deposited the rent during the pendency of application for eviction under Clause 11 of Schedule 2 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2011'). He further submits that respondent/tenant even at the time of filing of appeal, has not deposited the arrears of rent, hence, Tribunal ought not to have allowed the application for grant of stay filed by the tenant along with appeal. Even after passing of interim order of stay, respondent/tenant has not deposited the rent till December 2019. Respondent/tenant has deposited the arrears of rent after filing of application for vacating of stay order and to dismiss appeal. The Tribunal has not taken into consideration the provisions of Section 12(6) of the Act of 2011. It is contended that respondent/tenant is having an obligation to pay the security deposit rent and other dues fully and regularly in the manner settled by landlord under Clause 8 of Schedule 4. He pointed out that sub-section (6) of Section 12 of the Act of 2011 provides for punishment in denying the rights of the landlord by tenant. The respondent/tenant is a habitual defaulter, hence, he is not entitled for protection. More so, when the petitioner/landlord has sought for eviction for her own use. He submits that taking into consideration the entire facts of the case and the act of the respondent/tenant, not only the order of stay should be vacated, but appeal filed by respondent/tenant itself to be dismissed.