Chhattisgarh HC Upholds Eviction Of Occupants Who Denied Tenancy, Finding 3-Month Notice Unneeded Because Habitual Rent Default Was Also Pleaded

The respondent sought eviction of the petitioners under Section 12 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, alleging personal requirement and habitual default in rent.

The Rent Control Authority ordered eviction, and the Rent Control Tribunal dismissed the petitioners’ appeal.

The petitioners disputed being tenants, relied on the respondent’s police statement describing them as encroachers, and argued that the eviction proceeding was not maintainable without three months’ notice for personal use.

They also challenged the award of rent arrears on the ground that no issue had been framed on that relief.

The High Court noted that the respondent had produced possession and rent documents, which the petitioners had not disputed before either forum.

Section 12 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, read with Clause 11 of Schedule 2, permits eviction on any one or more of the listed grounds.

Clause 11(g) requires three months’ written notice where eviction is sought on the ground of the landlord’s own or a family member’s occupation; that notice is not a precondition where eviction is also sought on the independent ground of habitual default under Clause 11(a).

Where a landlord prima facie establishes title and produces evidence of tenancy, the occupants must establish how and in what capacity they entered and remain in possession.

Non-framing of an issue is not fatal where the parties were aware of the dispute.

The respondent relied on possession and rent documents that the petitioners had not disputed before the Rent Control Authority or the Tribunal.

The petitioners produced no material explaining their entry into or capacity of occupation; the court therefore rejected their bare assertion that they were encroachers.

It also held that the police statement did not displace the evidence of rent default.

Because habitual default was pleaded in addition to personal requirement, the proceeding could be maintained under Clause 11(a) without the notice required by Clause 11(g) for the personal-occupation ground.

Finally, the absence of a separately framed issue on arrears did not invalidate the relief because the dispute was known to the parties.

It dismissed the writ petition and left the orders of the Rent Control Authority and Tribunal undisturbed.