VINAY VERMA Vs. KAMLESH TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The respondent Kamlesh Tiwari filed an application invoking the provisions of Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (henceforth 'the Act of 2011') seeking ejectment on a ground enumerated in Schedule 2 of Sec. 12(2) of Sr. No.11(a) and (h). The respondent contended that the tenant is habitual defaulter of payment of rent and further has not vacated the premises despite service of notice of a specified period of six months. The Rent Controlling Authority passed an order of ejectment which was affirmed in appeal by the Tribunal. Hence this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate would submit that admittedly on the basis of a rent agreement initially executed on 4/09/2006, the petitioner was inducted as a tenant which was for three years which came to an end on 3/9/2009. It is stated subsequent thereto a sale agreement was executed by one of the brother of the joint family property namely Ajay Tiwari whereby the suit property/shop was agreed to be sold for an amount of Rs.31.00 lakhs and Rs.16.00 lakhs was paid as an earnest amount. Learned counsel would submit that it is the specific case of the petitioner that three shops exist at the spot which came to be partitioned and one shop was agreed to be purchased which fell into the share of Ajay Tiwari, for which eviction is sought for. The agreement was referred as Ex.D-18. It is further submitted that subsequently one of other co-sharer Kamlesh Tiwari had filed a petition after service of notice under the Act of 2011. Learned counsel would further submit that the very fact of non-payment of any rent after 2009 which is saved by the agreement Ex.D-18 would show that no landlord-tenant relationship ever existed between the parties. She would further submit that the notice which were exchanged in between the parties prior to filing of the petition before the Rent Control Authority specific stands have been taken by the petitioner that in respect of the suit property, an agreement of sale exist for which different litigation is pending before the Civil Court and landlord and tenant relation severed. She would further submit that despite such facts on record the Rent Control Authority has failed to appreciate and passed the order of ejectment, therefore both the orders are liable to be set aside.