UTSAV DEY Vs. SUSHIL KUMAR BHADRAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Despite service of notice no representation is made on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 20.11.2017, whereby the preliminary objection made by respondent tenant was upheld by the Rent Control Authority, whereby the petitioner herein was non suited in an eviction proceeding.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an eviction petition was filed before the Rent Control Authority under Schedule 2 Clause 11 (h) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2011') claiming ejectment of the respondents under the Act, 2011. After service of notice a preliminary objection was filed, wherein five objections were raised by the tenant that the notice as prescribed under Schedule 2 Clause 11 (h) of the Act, 2011 was not served. Further objection was to the effect that the agreement of tenancy has not been registered under Section 4 of the Act, 2011 and it was also stated that the mother of the petitioners had filed a similar like nature of petition for eviction against the respondents, which was dismissed by the 7th Civil Judge Class-II, Bilaspur and affirmed by the Court of Additional District Judge in the year 2014. As such the eviction petition filed by the petitioners is not tenable. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the objections were upheld by a cryptic order which resulted into dismissal of the petition for eviction. It is further contended that in an eviction proceeding principles of res judicata could not be pressed into motion and the facts would show that the instant petition for eviction before the Rent Control Authority is filed by the son and after the death of the mother, the fresh eviction petition was filed. It is further stated that the Rent Control Authority without any application of mind has allowed the objection. Referring to the document, the counsel would submit that notices were duly served as contemplated under Schedule 2 Clause 11 (h) of the Act, 2011 and registration of rent agreement under Section 4 would not be mandatory in the facts of the Rent agreement was much prior to the commencement of the Act, 2011. therefore, while the petition was preferred for eviction, the rent agreement was attached with the eviction petition. It is contended that even non-registration of the agreement will not render the petition for dismissal as it is only a directory in nature. He further stated that in respect of the other tenants in the eviction proceedings, the same objection was filed, but the result was in favour of the petitioners. It is stated that after such dismissal of objection the tenants challenged the same before the High Court and the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the tenant. In a result, two contradictory opinions have been arrived at by the Rent Control Authority in a likewise similar nature of petitions accordingly, the impugned order cannot be sustained.