MOHD SIDDIQUIE Vs. ASHA NADAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the petitioner/tenant invoking power vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby the order dated 04 th of May, 2018 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, at Raipur, is under challenge. The order is for eviction of the petitioner/tenant.

(2.) The facts of this case are that the petitioner was tenant of respondents. A notice was served to the petitioner as per Sec. 12 read with Schedule 2 Clause 11(h) Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2011') on 28/10/2016, whereby he was asked to vacate the premises by 30/11/2016. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the said notice fails to satisfy the statutory requirement as required under Schedule 2 Clause 11 (h) of the Act, 2011, which mandates that 6 months notice to the tenant in writing would be necessary to get an eviction as per Sec. 12 of the Act, 2011.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the statute provides certain thing to be done in a particular way then no deviation can be made and referred to law laid down in the case of K. LUBNA and ORS VERSUS BEEVI and ORS (CIVIL APPEAL NOs.2442-2443 OF 2011, judgment delivered on 13th of January, 2020), and it is contended that pure question of law can be examined at any stage, even if no pleading in this regard was made. He further relies on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of OPTO Circuit India Ltd. Versus Axis Bank and Ors. {Criminal Appeal No.102 of 2021} wherein reiterating the law laid down in the case of Chandra Kishor Jha Vs. Mahavir Prasad and Ors. {(1999) 8 SCC 266} the Court observed that the salutary principle that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. Accordingly, the notice giving one month time to get the premises vacated, would not satisfy the provisions of the Schedule 2 Clause 11 (h), therefore, the eviction order passed by both the Rent Control Authority and Rent Control Tribunal would be bad in law and requires interference by this Court.