'Bonafide Requirement' Of Suit Premises Not Statutory Mandate For Eviction U/S 12(2) Of Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011: High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently observed that 'bonafide requirement' of suit premises is not a statutory stipulation for eviction under Section 12(2) Schedule-2 Clause 11(h) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011. The provision only requires that 6 months notice to the tenant in writing would be necessary, however on the condition that the accommodation will not be leased out at a higher rent for atleast 12 months thereafter.Thus, it was of the view that the Rent Control Authority cannot by itself add the word "bonafide" in the proceedings pertaining to the said provision. A division bench of Justice Goutam Bhaduri & Radhakishan Agrawal observed: "Reading of Clause (h) of Clause 11 of Schedule 2, Section 12(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 do not put any obligation on the landlord to assign any reason, it only requires that 6 months notice to the tenant in writing would be necessary, however on the condition that the accommodation will not be leased out at a higher rent for at least 12 months thereafter. If the word "bonafide" is added in such requirement by the Rent Control Authority, it would amount to completely sideline the object of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011; besides will make the Act of 2011 as porous." The clarification comes in an appeal preferred by a landlord questioning the one of the issues framed by the Rent Controller in the eviction proceedings initiated by him.The issue read as follows: "whether the landlord would require the premises on the basis of "bonafide" requirement?"The Appellant had sought amendment of the said issue, to the extent of removing the word 'bonafide'. However, the application was dismissed and an appeal from such dismissal also failed. Hence, the instant proceedings.The Appellant argued that "bonafide requirement" cannot be incorporated while deciding the case under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 as it would be against the statute. Respondents did not make appearance despite service of notice. The Court said that the authorities are bound by the statute. Though the insertion of word bonafide appears to be simple, but would have a "devastating effect" if considered as against the object of the Act of 2011. The object of Act of 2011 is that after service of notice under Section 11(h), no obligation is cast or to assign any reason on the landlord seeking eviction. Reading the word "bonafide" requirement by a landlord in clause 11(h) would completely contrary to the object of Act of 2011 and will cast a fog of uncertainty. By substance addition of word, the object of statute cannot be defeated. "The idea to reform to seek an eviction by landlord as guaranteed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 would be completely shelved to have a domino effect." Court said In the above terms the petition was allowed.Case Title: Shri Gaushala Pinjarapol v. Ashok Kumar Kochar and AnrCitation : 2022 LiveLaw (Chh) 57Click Here To Read/Download Order

'Bonafide Requirement' Of Suit Premises Not Statutory Mandate For Eviction U/S 12(2) Of Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011: High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

'Bonafide Requirement' Of Suit Premises Not Statutory Mandate For Eviction U/S 12(2) Of Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011: High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers