JUDGEMENT : Goutam Bhaduri, J. Heard. 1. Instant petition is against the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal constituted under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2011'). The order is dated 21/12/2021 wherein ejectment order dated 23/03/2021 passed by the Rent Control Authority was affirmed. 2. Instant petition is by the tenant. The brief facts of this case are that the respondent filed an application for ejectment of the petitioner in respect of the shop bearing No.40/38 situated at Babu Jagjivan Ram Ward-40, fruit market, Raipur. According to the pleaded facts, the father-in-law of the petitioner Satyanarayan Choudhary obtained the said shop 30 years back to run a business of fruits. After his death the petitioner continued to be a tenant. The rent of the shop lastly was Rs.3,360/-. It was pleaded that for last six months the petitioner has not paid the rent regularly, therefore as per section 12(2) read with 11(h) of schedule-2 of the Act of 2011 a notice was issued to the petitioner by the respondent on 29/11/2018 whereby his tenancy was terminated from the midnight of 29/05/2019 i.e. after expiry of six months. The petition before the Rent Control Authority was strongly contested and it was stated that the petitioner is not in the arrears of rent and the legal rent though was tendered was not accepted by the respondent/landlord. It was further pleaded that the notice dated 29/11/2018 was not in conformity to the statutory requirement, as such since the notice itself on the very inception was bad in law, the ejectment cannot be ordered on that basis by the Rent Control Authority. Both the Rent Control Authority and the Tribunal did not accept the contention of the petitioner/tenant, hence this petition before this court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that section 12(2) read with 11 (h) of schedule-2 of the Act of 2011 requires notice to the tenant in writing, without any obligation to assign any reason, the said notice therefore should have been in conformity to the section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. He would submit that the notice dated 29/11/2018 giving a six months time which would expire on 29/05/2019 cannot be said to be a legally constituted notice as the tenancy was terminated in the midway. He would submit that the notice dated 29/11/2018 giving a six months time which would expire on 29/05/2019 cannot be said to be a legally constituted notice as the tenancy was terminated in the midway. Referring to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in (1977) 2 SCC 646 in between Bhagabandas Agarwalla Vs. Bhagwandas Kanu and others the counsel would submit that their Lordships in the said case have held that notice to quit must expire with the end of the month of the tenancy or in other words it must terminate the tenancy with effect from expiration of month of the tenancy. He would submit that in the teeth of such law laid down by the Supreme Court the notice itself would be bad in law. Accordingly, both the order of the Rent Control Authority and the Tribunal therefore requires to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the principle laid down in the case cited by the petitioner would rather lean in favour of the respondent inasmuch as the operation of 106 of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be independent and it is circumvented by the local law which is Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 which only prescribe that six months notice is required which has been fulfilled in the instant case. Therefore the order passed by both the Rent Control Authority and the Tribunal is well merited which do not call for any interference. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. After hearing the parties, the limited question which falls for consideration as to whether the notice dated 29/11/2018 issued to the petitioner under section 12(2) read with 11(h) of schedule-2 of the Act of 2011 would be legal or not. For the sake of brevity, Section 12(2) and 11(h) of the Schedule-2 of the Act, 2011 are reproduced hereunder:- “12. Rights and Obligations of Landlords and Tenants. - XXX (2) Every landlord shall have rights according to Schedule 2. The Tribunal and Rent Controller shall act at all times to secure to the landlord these rights : Provided that- (a) In case of any clash of interests of the landlord and the tenant, and/or any point of doubt in respect of matters relating to rent, the benefit thereof shall be granted to the tenant. The Tribunal and Rent Controller shall act at all times to secure to the landlord these rights : Provided that- (a) In case of any clash of interests of the landlord and the tenant, and/or any point of doubt in respect of matters relating to rent, the benefit thereof shall be granted to the tenant. (b) In case of any clash of interests of the landlord and the tenant, and/or any point of doubt in respect of matters relating to returning possession of the accommodation to the tenant, benefit thereof shall be granted to the landlord.” “11.Right to seek from the Rent Controller eviction of the tenant on the following grounds: xxxxx (h) On 6 months notice to the tenant in writing, without any obligation to assign any reason, but on the condition that the accommodation will not be leased out at a higher rent for atleast 12 months thereafter.” 6. Reading of section 12 of the Act of 2011 which was promulgated on 6th November, 2012 would show the object of the Act is that earlier Rent Control Act, 1961 had lost its practicability and the earlier Act was leaning in favour of the tenant too much. Consequently, to lease out a premises under rent had became unpopular. Therefore, the fresh Act was thought to be set which would strike the balance in favour of both. With such object, when we examine section 12(2), it shows that section gives the obligation to the landlord and tenant both. The section when read in harmony with 11(h) of schedule-2, it purports that when the landlord gives six months notice to the tenant in writing, without any obligation to assign any reason, but on the condition that the accommodation will not be leased out at a higher rent for at least 12 months thereafter, the ejectment order can be passed. Therefore non-compliance to section 106 of Transfer of Property Act may not be to any help to the petitioner tenant. The centrality of Act of 2011 is to curtail the pursuits of justice by long and arduous battle will therefore prevail over the tumbling effort of tenant in the instant case. 7. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in (1977) 2 SCC 646 in between Bhagabandas Agarwalla Vs. Bhagwandas Kanu and others, would show it also strikes a balance. 7. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in (1977) 2 SCC 646 in between Bhagabandas Agarwalla Vs. Bhagwandas Kanu and others, would show it also strikes a balance. In the said fact of the case before Supreme Court, while deciding the validity of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, principally the Court held that notice to quit must expire with the end of the month of the tenancy or in other words termination of tenancy with effect from expiration of the month of the tenancy. While interpreting the question which was posed qua 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the Court observed that section lays down that in absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease from month to month shall be terminable, by giving a 15 days notice expiring with the end of the month of the tenancy. Dealing the facts in that case, the Supreme Court observed that in that case the notice was issued to the tenant by the landlord terminating the tenancy “within the month of October, 1962”. While interpreting the same the Court observed that in such case the intention of the landlord is to be looked into which means that the tenant was required to vacate the premises by the midnight of October, 1962. Therefore, the validity of the notice whereby the tenant was asked to vacate the premises within the month of October, 1962 was held to be justified taking into the fact the intention of the author of the notice is to be seen. In the instant case, it cannot run parallel to the analogy which has been projected by the petitioner that the notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act should have been with the expiration of the month of the tenancy for the reason that first the local law of Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 only gives an obligation to give a six months notice to the tenant in writing. In the instant case the notice was given on 29/11/2018 terminating the tenancy by giving six months notice which set out the cut off date to 29/05/2019. Perusal of the record of the Rent Control Authority would further show that the suit for eviction was filed on 14/06/2019 i.e much after 29/05/2019. 8. In the instant case the notice was given on 29/11/2018 terminating the tenancy by giving six months notice which set out the cut off date to 29/05/2019. Perusal of the record of the Rent Control Authority would further show that the suit for eviction was filed on 14/06/2019 i.e much after 29/05/2019. 8. Therefore, considering the object of the Act of 2011, we are not inclined to adopt a hyper-technicality in the subject issue inasmuch the intention of the landlord was required to be seen. It is a settled proposition of law that if any statute or legislation including the notice to quit is construed with a view to find fault with, it is likely to loose its effectiveness. Interpretation should however be to ensure not to render such notice, a wide or futile one hyper-critical or pedantic approach should not be made a basis for determining the validity or otherwise of any such notice rather a common sense path coupled with a realistic and simplistic approach should be preferred to be treaded upon in the salubrious exercise of giving a harmonious construction to any statute. 9. In view of such, we do not find any merit in the case and accordingly it is dismissed.