Rameshwar Prasad Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

@ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITAPPEAL NO.

/2014 (D.B.) APPELLANT Rameshwar Prasad Agrawal, aged about PETITIONER 8O years, son of Late Shri Ram Bhagat Agrawal, occupation - Agriculturist, resident of - Belgahana, Tahsil - Kota, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS l.

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary Excise Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur CG.

2.

CoHector, Bilaspur 3.

District Excise Officer, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 SUB SECTION 1 OF THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT, 2007

tHGH COURT OF CHHATTLSGARH.

BJLASPUR D.B.:

HON'BLE SHRI NAVIN SINHA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE SHRI PLSAM KOSHY. J.

WRITAPPEAL NO. 93 OF 2014 APPELLANT Rameshwar Prasad Agrawal

Versus

RESPONDENTS x IWRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(1t OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH ACT 2007 Aggearance:

Mr.

P.K.C. Tiwari, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shashi Bhushan, Advocate for Appellant.

Mr' U.N.S. Deo, GovernmentAdvocate for the State.

O R D E R

(27th of January, 2015) W PER NAVIN SINHA ACTING CJ 1.

We have heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant and the State. 2.

The present appeal arises from order dated 9.1,2014 dismissing Writ Petition No.485 of 2001. The Learned Single Judge held that there was no written agreement between parties fixing rent at Rs.1500/- per month. The Collector having opined to fix the rent at Rs.350/- per month committed no illegality in applying the analogy of the Rent Control Act in fixing rent even if the provisions of the Rent Control Act were not applicable at village Belgahna. The writ petition was based on disputed

facts which could not be examined in the writjurisdiction. 3.

Learned Senior Counsel for the Appeliant submits that no disputed facts were invoived. Documentary evidence was available with regard to the agreed rent of Rs.1500/-.

If the Rent Control Act was not applicable at village Belgahna, the Collector acted without jurisdiction. This illegal usurpation of power could not be justified on basis of analogy. 4.

We had adjourned matter on 11.12.2014 noticing limited nature of controversy and required Respondents to file counter amdavit. No counter affidavit has been filed despite adjournment granted further for the purpose.

5.

The appeal can be disposed on a very short question and therefore we do not consider it necessary to consider all arguments advanced by the Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant. 6.

lf village Belgahna did not fall within area where Rent Control Act applied, the Collector could not exercise powers under the Rent Control Act for fixing rent. The order of the Collector fixing the rent is held without jurisdiction.

The agreed quantum of rent based on Annexure-P/11 dated 7.3.1994 at Rs.1500/- remains applicable between the parties with regard to the duration of tenancy. Arrears, if any, be paid within a maximum period of eight weeksfrom the date of receipt and/or production of a certified copy of this order before concerned authority.

7.

The appeal is allowed.

Sd/~ Sd/- P. Sam Koshy Judge Acting Chief Justice Anu \_ ' ,, Mm,