ASHISH KUMAR DIXIT Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The facts of this case, in nutshell, is that respondent No. 3, filed a petition before the Rent Control Authority under Sec. 12 (2) of the Rent Control Act, 2011. During pendency of such petition, an application was filed under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the CPC and under Order 16 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC with a prayer that the relation of landlord and tenant in between the parties do not exist, which has been affirmed by judgment of the Civil Court in Civil Suit No. 2-A/2011 dtd. 22/10/2018, as such the dispute, inter se between the parties cannot be adjudicated by the Rent Control Authority.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Rent Control Authority would not be within its domain to exercise its jurisdiction to decide the ownership of the property qua the applicant and the Respondent No. 3. Consequently, if the ownership is not vested with Respondent No. 3, then in such case the petition for eviction before the Rent Control Authority would not be maintainable. He further submits that both the learned Single Judge and the Rent Control authority failed to consider the facts of the case in its true perspective. Therefore, the initial order of the Rent Control Authority dtd. 20/1/2022 and the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 692 of 2022 dtd. 7/2/2022 are required to be set aside by allowing the application under Order 7 rule 11(d) of the CPC and the application under Order 16 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC.