Heard.
1. The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 07.02.2022 ( Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 692 of 2022.
2. The facts of this case, in nutshell, is that respondent No. 3, filed a petition before the Rent Control Authority under Section 12 (2) of the Rent
Control Act, 2011. During pendency of such petition, an application was filed under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the CPC and under Order 16 Rule 1 & 2
of the CPC with a prayer that the relation of landlord and tenant in between the parties do not exist, which has been affirmed by judgment of the Civil
Court in Civil Suit No. 2-A/2011 dated 22.10.2018, as such the dispute, inter se between the parties cannot be adjudicated by the Rent Control
Authority.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Rent Control Authority would not be within its domain to exercise its
jurisdiction to decide the ownership of the property qua the applicant and the Respondent No. 3. Consequently,  if the ownership is not vested with
Respondent No. 3, then in such case the petition for eviction before the Rent Control Authority would not be maintainable. He further submits that
both the learned Single Judge and the Rent Control authority failed to consider the facts of the case in its true perspective. Therefore, the initial order
of the Rent Control Authority dated 20.01.2022 and the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 692 of 2022Â dated 07.02.2022 are
required to be set aside by allowing the application under Order 7 rule 11(d) of the CPC and the application under Order 16 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3, vehemently opposes the argument and submits that even after purchase of property in the year 2012, still the
benefits and fruits of the property is not enjoyed by him and the appellant herein is enjoying the property for some reason or another.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.
6. Perusal of the documents would show that before Rent Control Authority an application was filed by Respondent No. 3Â under Section 12 (2) of
the Rent Control Act, 2011 ("" for short Act of 2011""). During such adjudication, the subject application was filed by the appellant herein on the ground
that the landlord tenant relation between the parties do not exist, therefore, the issue which is pending would not be within the jurisdiction of the Rent
Control Authority. The said application was dismissed. Further, while going through the records filed before the Learned Single Judge and the order
passed by the Civil Court in the case Civil Suit No. 2-A/2011 dated 22.10.2018 which was brought by Ashish Kumar Dixit (appellant herein) with a
prayer that forceful dispossession cannot be made by the defendant otherwise than in due course of law. In such suits Sandeep Lal Gupta and
Gurmeet Simgh Bhatiya were defendants No. 1 & 2. Reading of the said judgment would show at para 12 the Court recorded the finding that subject
property was purchased by Gurmeet Singh Bhatiya for a consideration or Rs. 30 Lakhs on 12.06.2012 by registered sale deed. Subsequent, reading of
judgment would also show that the finding on the ejectment, it was observed that in order to get an ejectment decree under Section 12 (f) of C.G.
Accommodation Control Act (old), 1961 the landlord needs to prove that the accommodation was let out for non-residential purposes is required
bonafide by the landlord for the purpose of continuing or starting his business and no other suitable accommodation is available to him. Subsequent, the
Act of 2011 came into being wherein different grounds for ejection have been enumerated. Therefore, the earlier findings recorded by Civil Judge is
only with respect to interpretation of earlier grounds as enumeration under Accommodation Act of 1961. The said Act having been replaced by other
Accommodation Control Act of 2011, the entire decision has to be rendered, in accordance with the statutory mandate of Act of 2011.
7. The purchase having been made by the registered sale deed and respondent No. 3 herein since has filed an application for ejectment, we do not find
any reason whereby provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(d)Â can be set into motion. Rather the findings of ownership in a earlier Civil Suit is recorded in
favour of Respondent No. 3, and therefore he would be entitled to maintain a petition for ejectment before the Rent Control
Authority against the tenant under the Act of 2011. Consequently, the dismissal of application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC and application under
Order 16 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC is justified in the facts of this case. The interim relief granted earlier shall stand vacated.
8. In view of this, the appeal sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
