News Citation : 2024 LN (HC) 3
Bilaspur, December 06, 2024 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has set aside an order of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal and restored an eviction order passed in favour of a landlord, holding that the existence of a landlord tenant relationship does not depend on ownership of property but on the payment and receipt of rent.
The Division Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru allowed a writ petition filed by Indradev Chouhan, a Raipur resident, who had challenged the tribunal’s April 6, 2022 order reversing an eviction decree passed by the Rent Control Authority.
The dispute relates to a small commercial shop measuring about 70 square feet at Oswal Ispat Udyog, Tatibandh, Raipur. Chouhan had let out the shop to Ajay Singh in March 2006 on a monthly rent of ₹1,100. According to the landlord, rent was paid regularly until February 2016, after which Singh stopped making payments. Despite a legal notice demanding arrears and eviction, the tenant continued in possession, prompting eviction proceedings under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011.
In February 2021, the Rent Control Authority ordered eviction and directed payment of outstanding rent. This was overturned by the Rent Control Tribunal, which held that there was no landlord tenant relationship between the parties, accepting the tenant’s claim that he had purchased the shop by paying ₹1.20 lakh.
The High Court disagreed with this approach. It noted that the shop had been granted to the petitioner by the State on a long term lease of 100 years, which restricted transfer but did not prohibit letting the premises on rent. The Bench observed that the rent agreement executed in 2006 was admitted by the respondent, who also acknowledged having paid rent to the petitioner. These facts, the Court held, were sufficient to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant under the Act.
Interpreting the definitions of “landlord” and “tenant” under the 2011 Act, the Court emphasised that for the purpose of rent control proceedings, landlordship is not synonymous with ownership. What matters is whether a person is entitled to receive rent and whether rent has in fact been paid. The tribunal’s view that a mere rent agreement was insufficient was described as perverse and contrary to settled law.
The Bench also rejected the respondent’s argument that the premises were exempt from the Rent Control Act because the land originally belonged to the government. The Court clarified that the petitioner was a lease holder, not a government tenant, and the lease only restricted transfer of the property, not creation of tenancy.
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court restored the eviction order and directed the respondent to hand over vacant possession of the shop within one month. The Court also ordered payment of ₹1,94,900 as arrears of rent along with simple interest at six percent per annum from February 19, 2021 until realisation.
Case Reference : WP227 No. 313 of 2023, Indradev Chouhan vs Ajay Singh; Counsel for the Petitioner: Shri Aditya Khare, Advocate; Counsel for the Respondent: Shri Mayank Kumar, Advocate.