The Chhattisgarh High Court recently in the case Shri Gaushala Pinjarapol v. Ashok Kumar Kochar and Anr observed and stated that the ‘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.
However, the provision only requires that 6 months’ notice to the tenant in writing would be necessary and on the condition that the accommodation will not be leased out thereafter, at a higher rent for 12 months at least.
Therefore, 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.
The division bench comprising of Justice Goutam Bhaduri and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal observed and stated that while 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 as it only requires in writing that 6 months’ notice to the tenant would be necessary, however on the condition that the accommodation will not be leased out at a higher rent thereafter, for at least 12 months. Thus, 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 the same will make the Act of 2011 as porous.
In an appeal preferred by a landlord, the clarifications come that it would require the premises on the basis of “bonafide” requirement?
Further, the appellant had sought amendment of the said issue, to the extent of removing the word ‘bonafide’. Therefore, the court dismissed the application and an appeal from such dismissal also failed. Hence, the instant proceedings.
It was argued by the appellant that the “bonafide requirement” cannot be incorporated while deciding the case under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 as it would be against the statute.
However, the respondents did not make any appearance despite service of notice.
The Court stated that the authorities are bound by the statute. Though the insertion of word bonafide appears to be simple, but would also have a “devastating effect” if considered as against the object of the Act of 2011. Hence, 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. While, 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, it cannot defeat the object of statute. The Court said that 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. Accordingly, the court in the above terms allowed the petition.