Merely claiming that he is not tenant of the plaintiff would not constitute a ground under Section 12(1)(c) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act of 1961- Chhattisgarh High Court
For ground under   Section   12(1)(c)   of the   Act of   1961, the title must be specifically denied by the   Respondent, which is detrimental to the interest of the plaintiff, then only ground under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 is made out. A single-judge bench comprising of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal adjudicating in the matter of Shivprasad Tiwari v. Banshilal Sablok(Second Appeal No.293 of 2006) dealt with an issue of whether to set aside judgment passed by the lower courts. In the present case, the Appellant preferred a second appeal claiming that the Respondent is his tenant and the judgment and decree passed under   Section   12(i)(a)   &amp;   (c)   of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 should be set aside. The plaintiff’s mother purchased a property and constructed a shop over there and let out such shop to the Respondent (died during the pendency of the second appeal) for a monthly rent of Rs.500/- for non-residential purpose and after the death of the plaintiff’s mother, he became the landowner of the suit accommodation. Plaintiff further stated that the Respondent is not paying rent for the last 3 years for which he was served legal notice. The Respondent did reply to legal notice but neither paid the rent and denied the plaintiff’s title and thereby he is entitled to a decree u/s 12(1) (a) &amp;(c) of the   Chhattisgarh   Accommodation   Control   Act, 1961. The Respondent in his written statement denied the averments made by Plaintiff and stated he was not the tenant of Plaintiff. The Respondent in his reply to the legal notice stated that the plaintiff is not the landlord of the suit accommodation. The plaintiff submitted that both courts below have committed legal error in holding that relationship of landlord and tenant is not established between the plaintiff and the Respondent. The court has ignored the testimonies of the witnesses, where they clearly admitted that the suit accommodation was let-­out   by the plaintiff’s mother to the Respondent, and hence the findings recorded by the two courts below are liable to be dismissed. Also, it was further submitted that u/s-12(1) (a) &amp; (c) of the   Chhattisgarh   Accommodation   Control   Act, 1961. it is clearly established that the plaintiff’s mother purchased the suit land and after the death of his mother, the plaintiff has succeeded the suit property,   as such,   finding recorded by two   Courts below that relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the Respondent is not established is perverse and is hereby set-aside. The court after minute consideration of both the parties, it is clearly established that the plaintiff’s mother purchased the suit land and after the death of his mother, the plaintiff has succeeded the suit property,   as such,   finding recorded by two   Courts below that relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the Respondent is not established is perverse and is hereby set­aside. Also, it is clearly established that the plaintiff’s mother purchased the suit land and after the death of his mother, the plaintiff has succeeded the suit property, as such, finding recorded by two   Courts below that relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the Respondent is not established is perverse and is hereby set-aside. Also, the court stated that the Respondent has not denied the title of the plaintiff specifically. Merely claiming that he is not a tenant of the plaintiff would not constitute a ground under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act of 1961. For ground under   Section   12(1)(c)   of the   Act of   1961, title must   be specifically denied by the   Respondent, which is detrimental to the interest of the plaintiff, then only ground under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 is made out and simple and vague denial of the plaintiff’s title,   if   any,   would   not   constitute   a ground   under   Section   12(1)(c)   of   the   Act   of   1961, therefore,   the   plaintiff   is   not   entitled   for   decree under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act of 1961.  In the present case the arrears of rent  has not been paid to the plaintiff on the premises that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant, as such, since it has already been held that relationship between   the   plaintiff   and   the   Respondent   as   landlord and   tenant   is   established   and   despite   service   of notice (Ex.P­3) to the Respondent he has not tendered arrears   of   rent   within   two   months   from   the   date   of notice   (Ex.P­1),   the   plaintiff   would   be   entitled   to decree under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act of 1961. Both the   substantial   questions   of   law   are   answered   in favour of the plaintiff and against the Respondent. Finally the court relied upon Satish Chandra v. Jankiprasad and considered Section 12(1)(a) of the Act of 1961 and held that it is not necessary to mention in the demand notice the period within which arrears to be paid, and even if period less than two months is mentioned, the demand notice shall not become invalid.
Shivprasad Tiwari S o Vasudev Prasad Tiwari Aged about 51 years R o Naharpara Raipur1­A. Harish Sablok S o late Shri Banshilal Sablok Aged about 48 years R o­P­225 6 Priyadarshni Nagar Raipur 2. This second appeal preferred by the appellant plaintiff was admitted for hearing on 13.12.2007 by formulating the following substantial not the owner and the respondent defendant not his tenant is perverse since both the the plaintiff as also the documents Ex.P­1 B. If yes whether the judgment and decree passed under Section 12(i)(a) & of the referred hereinafter as per their status shown and nomenclature in the suit before the trial 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit accommodation was owned by his mother Bhagwati Bai which she has purchased by Exs.P­1 & P­2 and constructed a shop therein which she let­out to original defendant Basnshilal who died during he became landlord of the suit accommodation. It is further case of the plaintiff that the defendant is legal notice vide Ex.P­3 on 20.8.1998 which was of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act 1961 hereinafter called as the Act of 1961 4. Resisting the suit the defendant filed his written plaintiff is not entitled for decree. He has also pleaded that on 16th March 1986 the plaintiff has also issued notice to the defendant which he has 5. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record by its judgment and decree dated 23.7.2003 dismissed the appeal being preferred by the plaintiff the first appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the first appeal Questioning the judgment and decree of the first in which two substantial questions of law have been 6. Mr.Amrito Das learned counsel for the below have committed legal error in holding that he referred paras­7 and 19 and also referred the statement of Narayan Prasad Trivedi the defendant has not denying the landlord­tenant relationship as such he is entitled for decree of eviction on the ground landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the which has been called in question in this second In order to establish landlord­tenant relationship the plaintiff­Shivprasad Tiwari has examined himself as PW­1 and also examined witness Shri Narayan Prasad Trivedi as PW­2. It is quite accommodation is situated is purchased by the been examined as PW­1. He has stated that the suit as PW­2. In para­7 of cross­examination on question plaintiff has clearly stated that the suit him and in same paragraph on question being put this is carrying his business in the suit accommodation Prasad Tiwari in whose presence the suit accommodation has been let­out in para­5 he has purchased the suit land and thereafter tenancy was Apart from the plaintiff witness in cross­ examination the aforesaid fact has been extracted that the suit accommodation was let­out by the his own title right but he is tenant as such from the statements of plaintiff­Shivprasad Tiwari it is clearly has succeeded the suit property as such finding recorded by two Courts below that relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the and tenant is established between the plaintiff and The plaintiff has pleaded two grounds under to the defendant he has denied the title of the the Act of 1961 and reply to notice has also been “12. Restriction on eviction of tenants.­(1 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary shall be filed in any civil Court against a which is inconsistent with the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy of the accommodation or which is likely to affect deemed to be an act inconsistent with the purpose for which he was admitted to the ground under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 title must be specifically denied by the defendant plaintiff s title if any would not constitute a ground under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 therefore the plaintiff is not entitled for decree defendant has also filed reply vide Ex.P­6 and the not been paid to the plaintiff on the premises that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant as between the plaintiff and the defendant as landlord and tenant is established and despite service of arrears of rent within two months from the date of notice the plaintiff would be entitled to the substantial questions of law are answered in within which arrears to be paid and even if period judgment and decree of both the Courts below are of the Act of 1961 and it is directed that the defendant will hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the suit accommodation as shown in from the date of drawing the decree. The plaintiff Sd 1 1992 MPLJ 90