Deepak Ratre vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Deepak Ratre, constructed a house on government land and rented it to respondent No. 7 for Rs. 12,000 per month. Respondent No. 7, in turn, leased a portion of this house to the Excise Department to run a liquor shop for Rs. 14,000 per month. Following a complaint by respondent No. 6, the Excise Department ceased rent payments to respondent No. 7, and consequently, the petitioner, as the original owner, has not received rent since April 2020. The petitioner submitted a representation dated September 25, 2024, to respondent No. 4, the District Excise Officer, Sarangarh, regarding the vacant possession of the shop and unpaid rent, but this representation remains undecided.

Held

The Court considered the limited prayer of the petitioner and disposed of the petition. It directed respondent No. 4, the District Excise Officer, Sarangarh, to decide the representation dated September 25, 2024, filed by the petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt or submission of a copy of the Court's order. The Court did not make any specific findings or provide reasoning on the issues of unpaid rent or vacation of the premises, as the petition was disposed of based on the limited prayer for the decision of the representation. The Court did not expressly leave any issues undecided but focused solely on the procedural direction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct respondents No. 2 to 5 to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated September 25, 2024, concerning the vacant possession of the shop used by the Excise Department for running a liquor shop. 2. Whether the Court should direct respondents No. 2 to 5 to pay the rent for the liquor shop from April 2020 until the present date, as per the tender acceptance notesheet dated October 14, 2017. 3. Whether the Court should direct respondents No. 2 to 5 to vacate the petitioner's shop after removing the liquor shop from the petitioner's house. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he is the original owner of the shop, which was leased to respondent No. 7, who then subleased it to the Excise Department. Due to a complaint, rent payments stopped, leaving the petitioner unpaid. His representation to the District Excise Officer has not been decided, and he seeks a direction for its disposal. He also seeks payment of rent and vacation of the premises. Revenue/State's Arguments: The counsel for the State had no objection to allowing the limited prayer of the petitioner.