DAYALDAS CHAWLA Vs. RUBI MOHIT NATHON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is filed against the order dtd. 17/10/2022 , passed by the C.G. Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur. Learned Rent Control Tribunal by its order has affirmed the ejectment order dtd. 10/2/2021, passed by the Rent Control Authority, Dhamtari.

(2.) As per the case of the respondent (land-lord herein), she filed an application for ejectment after service of notice under the C.G. Rent Control Act, 2011( herein after referred to as 'Act of 2011') stating that on a land owned by her, three shops were constructed and one of the shop was let out to the petitioner (tenant herein) on 23/12/2005. Subsequently, with the passage of time a notice was served to the petitioner under Sec. 12 (2) Schedule 2 Clause 11 (b) (d) and (h) of Act of 2011 for vacating the shop and since the tenant failed to vacate the shop after notice, an application was preferred before the Rent Control Authority, Dhamtari and ejectment order was passed. Thereafter, an appeal was filed by the petitioner herein (tenant) before the learned Rent Control Tribunal and learned Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur by its order dtd. 17/10/2022 has affirmed the said order of ejectment. The tenant being aggrieved by such order has preferred the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Rent Control Authority while passing the order of ejectment has not framed the issues and without framing the issues the lis has been adjudicated. He further submits that an application was filed for framing of the issues, but the same was also rejected. He further submits that apart from the grounds stated under clause 11 (h) of Schedule 2 of Act of 2011, the petition was filed by the landlord on the ground that tenant has caused substantial damage to the accommodation as enumerated under clause 11 (b) of Schedule 2 and has become social nuisance as per clause 11 (d) of Schedule 2 of Act of 2011, therefore, 6 months notice was mandatory but before that the petition was filed. He further submits that with respect to the other two shops the respondent (land-lord) got them vacated and further let it out to other tenants at higher prices. He further submits that it would also effect the need projected by the respondent. He further submits that when this issue was placed before the learned Rent Control Authority with the proof of such fact, the same was dismissed without any application of mind. Consequently, there has been failure in exercise of jurisdiction by the Rent Control Authority and Rent Control Tribunal and the order of ejectment requires interference by this Court.