Zareen Siddiqui v. Smt. Usha Shrivastav

Mr. Shishir Dixit, Advocate Mr. R. L. Rajak, Advocate DB: Hon’ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey, ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Order on Board Per Sachin Singh Rajput, J. 14/01/2025

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 23.08.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed in Appeal No.11A/2024 by the Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur (for short “Tribunal”) by which the appeal filed by the petitioner against an order dated 28.11.2023 passed in Case No.92-90(6) year 2018-19 by the Rent Controller, Raipur was dismissed.

2. Fact of the case in nutshell is that the respondent (landlord) filed an application under 2 Section 12 (2) Schedule 2, Serial No.11 (j) of CG Rent Control Act, 2011 for getting vacant possession and for getting arrears of rent. The house owned and occupied by the respondent is situated in Greensville Housing Board Colony, Boriyakala, Raipur, whose house number is 106 Cedar-1, which the respondent had acquired from CG Housing Board after executing lease deed on 25.02.2010. On 01.10.2017, the respondent gave the disputed house to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.5500/- monthly rent, in lieu of getting the disputed house on rent, the petitioner gave a cheque of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent, but due to insufficient funds in the petitioner’s account, the cheque was dishonored, which the respondent informed the petitioner. The petitioner had assured to pay the outstanding rent. The respondent superannuated on 31.07.2018. After the death of her husband, as she needed a house for herself, the respondent sent a registered notice through her advocate on 24.04.2019 to vacate the disputed house for providing vacant possession and outstanding rent which was replied by the petitioner through his advocate. Even after receiving the notice, the petitioner did not pay the remaining rent and did not hand over the vacant possession to the respondent. Hence she filed an application before the Rent Controller, Raipur. The petitioner filed his written statement and resisted the pleadings. It was pleaded in the written statement that there was an agreement between the petitioner, respondent and her husband to take the house for residential purpose. Since the respondent and her husband did not reside in Raipur and were willing to sell the suit house, an oral agreement to purchase the suit house was entered into by and between the petitioner , respondent and her husband for consideration of Rs.25,00,000/-. In lieu of the said oral agreement, the petitioner had also paid an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to the respondent. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent. The respondent is making excuses in executing and registering the sale deed of the suit house and she had filed this suit with malice and greed. Therefore, a prayer was made to dismiss the application. 3

3. The evidences of both the parties were recorded by Rent Controller. Vide order dated

28.11.2023 the application of the respondent was allowed by the Rent Controller and directed the petitioner to deliver the vacant possession of suit house within one month, pay the arrears of rent Rs.4,01,500/- Court fee Rs.7,700/- and remaining water bill of Rs.30,591/-. The order of the Rent Controller, Raipur was subject to challenge before the Tribunal under Section 13 of CG Rent Control Act, 2011. By the impugned order dated 23.08.2024, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Tribunal which is assailed before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that learned Rent Controller as well as Tribunal have committed illegality and jurisdictional error in passing the impugned orders and also committed error in allowing the application of the respondent and granting relief of eviction of the petitioner from the suit house and also directing the petitioner to pay back the arrears of rent amount, Court fee and water bill. He further argued that both the Courts below (Rent Controller and Tribunal) did not appreciate the evidence brought before it to its proper perspective. He submits that there was an oral agreement to sell of the suit house for consideration of Rs.25,00,000/- and an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- has already been paid by the petitioner and the respondent is avoiding to execute and register the sale deed of the suit house. He submits that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. Hence the application of the respondent ought to have been dismissed by the Rent Controller and the appeal of the petitioner should have been allowed by the Tribunal. Therefore, he prays that the writ petition may be allowed and application of the petitioner for eviction against the petitioner and payment of arrears of rent may be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned orders and submits that both the Court below (Rent Controller and Tribunal) duly appreciated the evidences brought before it and gave a well reasoned finding of fact with regard to landlord and tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. He submits that the well merited findings recorded by both the Courts below may not be disturbed by 4 this Court in exercising power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. In the application filed by the respondent, she has categorically pleaded that the suit house was given to the petitioner on 01.10.2017 on a monthly rent of Rs.5500/-. She also pleaded that she has retired and she is in need of suit house to reside in it. She examined herself as PW-1 and she categorically deposed in line of application. She has exhibited her pension payment order as Ex. P-1, death certificate of her husband as Ex. P-2, registered notice sent through his counsel as Ex. P-3, postal receipt as Ex. P-4, reply of the petitioner as Ex. P-5 and lease deed of the suit house as Ex. P-6. The cheque of Rs.10,000/- issued by the respondent is Ex. P-7, return memo Ex. P-8 and P-9. The petitioner cross examined the respondent and made a suggestion that there was an agreement to sell of the suit house which was categorically denied by the respondent. She has categorically denied that an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was received by her husband and as a result of the said agreement there was no landlord/ tenant relationship. She has very categorically denied that the petitioner continuously contacted her for execution and registration of the sale deed which was procrastinated by her. From careful perusal of statement of this witness, it is quite vivid that the respondent has superannuated, she is in need of suit house and she is the owner of the suit house. She has denied with regard to oral agreement to sell and receipt of amount of Rs.15,00,000/- by her husband from the petitioner.

8. Shantanu Biswas was examined as AW-2, he deposed with regard to the fact of renting the suit house to the respondent. In the cross examination he has denied the suggestion with regard to sale agreement of the suit house for consideration of Rs.25,00,000/-.

9. The petitioner examined himself as DW-1, in his deposition before the Rent Controller he has stated that there was an oral agreement to sale for the suit house for consideration of Rs.25,00,000/-, Rs.15,00,000/- was received and he was continuously trying to persuade the respondent to get the sale deed registered. He 5 was subjected to lengthy cross-examination, he has said to have stated that Rs.15,00,000/- was paid to husband of the respondent in November, 2018 at that time his wife and son were present. He has also deposed that before sale of house of housing board, a No Objection Certificate is required from the housing board. He also admitted that NOC form is required to fill, affidavit is required to be given and copy of the agreement is required to be annexed. He has admitted that in order to execute the sale deed there has to be a written agreement and only the titleholder of the property can enter into an agreement, the other person cannot enter into an agreement. He admitted that water bill of Rs.30,591/- still unpaid and also admitted that he is the tenant of suit house. He admitted that the cheque Ex. P-7 was dishonored on account of insufficient fund. He has further admitted that the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- has not been shown by him in the income tax return and also admitted that the said amount was not given to Uma Shrivastava (respondent). He admits that no paper work was done.

10. On the basis of above broad evidence, learned Rent Controller gave a categorical finding that there was a landlord and tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent and the suit house was given on rent to the petitioner on 01.10.2017 and thereafter the arrears of rent was not paid by the petitioner. With regard to payment of Rs.15,00,000/- a categorical finding has been recorded by the Rent Controller that the petitioner in his evidence did not file any document nor examined any independent witness to prove the said fact to substantiate that he has paid Rs. 15,00,000/- as advance money in lieu of agreement to sell of the suit house and a finding has also been recorded by the Rent Controller that the respondent is a retired Government servant and barring the suit house she does not have any other accommodation to reside and this notice Ex. P-3 was issued for bonafide need of the suit house and ultimately the application of the respondent was allowed. It has been further observed by learned Rent Controller that the said amount was not disclosed by the petitioner in his income tax return. It has further been observed by the Rent Controller that the petitioner in his cross-examination stated that the said amount was 6 received by him from his friends and relatives as a loan however, no such evidence is brought on record. The finding so recorded by the Rent Controller has been duly appreciated by the Tribunal and affirmed the same by the impugned order. On due analysis of the material on record, this court does not find any illegality or irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders warranting interference by this Court in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition sans merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. At this stage, Mr. Dixit prays that some breathing time may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the suit house. The petitioner shall vacate the suit house by 31st of March, 2025.

11. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge PARUL MITTAL PARUL MITTAL Parul