IKRAM QURESHI vs TAJUDDIN

1

CGHC010431182026 2026:CGHC:46686-DB
Digitally signed
by ANURADHA
TIWARI
Date:
2026.11.05
10:41:03
+0530
NAFR
ANURADHA
TIWARI
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 5554 of 2026
1 - Ikram Qureshi S/o Islam Qureshi Aged About 39 Years At- Gulmohar
Heights, 102, Kelabadi, Durg, Tehsil And Distt. - Durg (C.G.)
2 - Afsar Qureshi S/o Islam Qureshi Aged About 42 Years At- Gulmohar
Heights, 102, Kelabadi, Durg, Tehsil And Distt.- Durg (C.G.)
3 - Smt. Ruhina Qureshi W/o Ikram Qureshi Aged About 34 Years At-
Gulmohar Heights, 102, Kelabadi, Durg, Tehsil And Distt.- Durg (C.G.)
... Petitioners
versus
Tajuddin S/o Late Mumtaj Hussain Aged About 68 Years At- Shubhash
Nagar, Ward No. 41, Gali No. 03, H.No. 10, Kelabadi, Durg, Tehsil And
Distt.- Durg (C.G.)
... Respondent
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Krushna Ram Mohapatra, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Santosh Sharma, Judge
Order on Board
Per Krushna Ram Mohapatra , Chief Justice
04.11.2026
1. Heard Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the
Petitioners.

2
2. The Petitioners, in this writ petition, seek to assail the order dated
12.10.2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Chhattisgarh
Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) in Appeal
No.28-A of 2026, filed under Section 13 of the Chhattisgarh Rent
Control Act, 2011 (for brevity, ‘Act of 2011’), whereby the appeal
was dismissed confirming the order dated 20.06.2025 (Annexure
P/2) passed by the learned Rent Control Authority, Durg, District
Durg (C.G.) (for brevity, ‘the RCA’) in Rent Control Case No.11A-
90 Year 2020-21.
3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the
Respondent, claiming himself to be the landlord, filed an
application before the RCA under Section 12 of the Act of 2011 for
eviction of the Petitioners, contending that he requires the
demised premises for his own occupation and that the Petitioners
have defaulted in payment of rent. The learned RCA, without
taking into consideration the case of the Petitioners, passed an
ex-parte order of eviction against them. Assailing the same, the
Petitioners filed Appeal No.28-A of 2026 before the Tribunal,
which was also dismissed. Hence, the present writ petition has
been filed.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioners,
that the Respondent had also lodged an FIR against Petitioner
No.1 before Police Station Nevai, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). The
Respondent-Tajuddin made a statement before the Police

3
(Annexure P/9) to the effect that the Petitioners are rank
trespassers (encroachers) in respect of the demised premises and
that, when they were asked to vacate the same, they demanded
Rs.5 lakhs for vacating it. Thus, it is clear from the statement of
the Respondent before the Police that the Petitioners were not
tenants under the Respondent. On the other hand, they were
encroachers over the said property. He, therefore, submits that
proceeding under Section 12 of the Act of 2011 for their eviction
before the RCA was not maintainable.
5. It is further submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the
Petitioners, that the Petitioners have taken a specific stand that
they are not tenants under the Respondent, but the said issue
was not properly adjudicated either by the RCA or by the Tribunal.
As such, the impugned orders are not sustainable. No notice was
served on the Petitioners by the Respondent before filing the
petition for eviction before the RCA, as required under Clause
11(g) of Schedule-2 of Section 12 of the Act of 2011. Thus, the
proceeding before the RCA was incompetent. The learned
Tribunal failed to adjudicate the said objection and recorded an
erroneous finding that, since the Petitioners are habitual
defaulters, no prior notice, as aforesaid, for initiation of the
proceedings before the RCA was necessary.
6. Although a prayer for recovery of arrears of rent was made, no
issue was framed to that effect; however, both the RCA and the

4
Tribunal granted relief for recovery of arrears of rent from the
Petitioners. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned orders
passed under Annexures P/1 and P/2.
7. Taking note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the
Petitioners and on perusal of the material on record, this Court
finds that, at the time of adjudication of the proceedings before the
RCA, the Respondent had submitted photocopies of the
possession letter along with copies of the rent receipts granted to
the Petitioners as a token of receipt of rent from them. The same
were not disputed by the Petitioners either before the RCA or
before the Tribunal.
8. Further, it appears that the Petitioners are in possession of the
demised premises. When the Respondent had, prima facie,
established that he is the title holder of the property, the onus
shifts to the Petitioners to establish how and when they entered
into possession of the demised premises. It is also required to be
established in what capacity the Petitioners are occupying the
demised premises. Not a single document to that effect has been
filed, except for a bald statement to the effect that the Petitioners
have been in possession of the demised premises since 2019.
9. Relevant portion of Clause 11 of Schedule-2 to Section 12 of the
Act of 2011 reads as follows:
“ SCHEDULE 2
[See Section 12 (2) of the Act)

5
Landlord's Rights available under the Act
Rights

11. Right to seek from the Rent Controller eviction of
the tenant on the following grounds:
(a) If the tenant is a habitual defaulter in
payment of rent and/or other dues.
(b) If the tenant causes, or allows to be caused,
substantial damage to. the accommodation, for
any reason whatsoever.
(c) If the tenant uses the accommodation for
purpose(s) other than that for which it was
leased out.
(d) If the tenant becomes a social nuisance.
(e) If the tenant is convicted under any section
of the Indian Penal Code.
(f) For carrying out major renovation work
which is not possible with the tenant housed in.
(g) On 3 months notice to the tenant in writing,
if the accommodation is required for own
occupation and/or occupation by any member
of the family including spouse, parent(s),
son(s), daughter, daughter(s)-in-law, son(s)-in-
law.
(h) On 6 months notice to the tenant in writing,
without any obligation to assign any reason,
but on the condition that the accommodation
will not be leased out at a higher rent for atleast
12 months thereafter:
Provided, however, that in case of the following
special categories of landlords and/or their spouse
desiring the accommodation back for own use, the
period of notice shall be one month: current or retired
government servants, widows, personnel of the armed
forces, persons coming to physical or mental
handicap, and senior citizens (above the age of 65
years).”
10. The Petitioners have taken a ground that the petition for eviction
before the RCA would be maintainable only if the pre-condition of
three months' notice is complied with when the demised premises
are required for personal use. In the instant case, no notice was
issued to the Petitioners by the Respondent before filing the

6
petition for eviction before the RCA. The Tribunal, on discussion of
the material on record, came to the conclusion that the petition for
eviction is also maintainable when the tenant is a habitual
defaulter in payment of rent and/or other dues.
11. Clause 11 of the Schedule-2 to Section 12 of the Act of 2011
provides for grounds to maintain a petition for eviction of tenant
before RCA. A petition for eviction of tenant is maintainable on any
one or some of the grounds mentioned in Clause 11. In the instant
case, apart from the ground of personal use, the Respondent had
also taken the ground that the Petitioners are habitual defaulters
in payment of rent. A notice of three months required to be given
to the tenant if a landlord claims eviction of the tenant on the
ground of personal use. But, to claim eviction under Clause 11(a),
i.e. habitual defaulter, no pre-condition of three months’ notice is
required to be complied, as would be clear from Clause 11 itself.
Thus, a petition for eviction would be maintainable solely on the
ground of eviction under Clause 11(a) of Schedule-2 to Section 12
of the Act of 2011. In all cases of eviction before the RCA, the pre-
condition of three months' notice under Clause 11(g) is not
required unless the landlord takes the sole ground of personal
use. In the instant case, apart from the ground of personal
requirement, the Respondent has also claimed that the Petitioners
are habitual defaulters in payment of rent. As such, three months'
notice, as contemplated under Clause 11(g) of Schedule-2 to
Section 12 of the Act of 2011, is not required to be issued.

7
12. It is submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioners
that no issue was framed on recovery of arrear dues from the
Petitioners, but relief to that effect has been granted by the RCA
and confirmed by the Tribunal. It is the trite law that when the
parties are aware of the dispute between them, non-framing of
issue on a particular point is not fatal to the proceeding. Thus,
there is no substance in the submission of Mr. Mishra, learned
counsel for the Petitioners.
13. The statement made before the Police is not enforceable in law.
When it is established by the Respondent that the Petitioners had
defaulted in payment of rent by adducing evidence, the question
of their being encroachers, as raised by the Petitioners, does not
arise in this case.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no infirmity in the
impugned orders passed under Annexures P/1 and P/2.
Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit, stands
dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Santosh Sharma) (Krushna Ram Mohapatra)
Judge Chief Justice
Anu