ORDER : Goutam Bhaduri, J. 1. Despite service of notice, no representation is made on behalf of the respondents. 2. The short question which falls for consideration is to the order dated 25.04.2022 passed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal wherein the order dated 22.11.2019 was affirmed which pertains to the amendment of issues of lis. 3. The background of the facts are that the petitioner filed an eviction petition against the respondents before the Rent Control Authority, Rajnandgaon under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011. Perusal of the record would show that the petition for eviction was under Section 12(2) Schedule-2 Clause 11(a) & 11(h) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011. The caption of the application was under the aforesaid provision which primarily speaks about the non-payment of rent coupled with the fact that after 6 months notice to the tenant in writing, without any obligation to assign any reason when the tenant fails to vacate the premises, the petition was filed. It was pleaded by the landlord that after vacation of the premises, the same would not be further leased out at a higher rent for a period of 12 months. 4. For sake of brevity, Section 12(2) Schedule-2 Clause 11(a) & 11(h) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 are reproduced herein below : “11. Right to seek from the Rent Controller eviction of the tenant on the following grounds : (a) If the tenant is a habitual defaulter in payment of rent and/or other dues. (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.” 5. (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.” 5. The issues were framed by the Rent Control Authority on 26.05.2019 (Annexure P-4) which reads as under : ^^izdj.k izLrqrA izdj.k esa fuEukuqlkj okn iz'u fu/kkZj.k fd;k tkrk gS %& 01 D;k vkosnd okxzLr ifjlj dk Lokeh gS \ 02 D;k vkosnd dks oknxzLr ifjlj dh LoHkkfod vko';drk gS \ 03 D;k vkosnd rFkk vukosnd ds e/; fdjk;snkjh laO;ogkj Fkk A 04 D;k vkosnd /kkjk 12¼2½ vuqlwph 2¼11½¼t½ ds varxZr fdjk;k'kqnk ifjlj dk vkf/kiR; vukosnd ls ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ 05 D;k vkosnd fdjk;k vuqca/k ds vHkko esa rFkk vkosnd HkkM+k fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e ds vU; izko/kkuksa ds foijhr gksus ls vukosnd fu"dklu gsrq mRrjnk;h ugha gSa \ 06 D;k vkosnd dks vukosnd ls cdk;k fdjk;k jkf'k izkIr djuk gS \ izdj.k vkosnd lk{; gsrq fu;r fd;k tkrk gS A lgh@& HkkM+k fu;a=.k vf/kdkjh jktukanxkao^^ 6. The petitioner filed an application for amendment of the issues on the ground that the issue No.2, the Rent Control Authority added the word “whether the landlord would require the premises on the basis of “bonafide” requirement ? Alongwith the other issues, the amendment was sought for and the Rent Control Authority by its order dated 21.11.2019 kept the issue No.1 & 2 as it is. In respect of the issue No.3 & 4 certain amendments were accepted. The petitioner herein being landlord was still aggrieved for the reason that issue No.2, which incorporated the word “bonafide requirement” was not in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011. Hence, an appeal was filed before the Rent Control Tribunal and the Rent Control Tribunal by its order dated 25.04.2022 dismissed the appeal. Hence this petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit 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. Therefore, initially when the order was not in favour of the petitioner, he filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. The Rent Control Tribunal by a cryptic order has dismissed the appeal without any application of mind, as such, the order requires to be set aside by amendment of issue No.2. 8. Therefore, initially when the order was not in favour of the petitioner, he filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. The Rent Control Tribunal by a cryptic order has dismissed the appeal without any application of mind, as such, the order requires to be set aside by amendment of issue No.2. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No representation is made on behalf of the respondents, despite service of notice. 9. The issue No.2 which was initially framed on 29.05.2019 would demonstrate to show whether the plaintiff is required the suit premises on the basis of bonafide requirement or not ? Having filed an application to amend the issue, the same was turned down by the Rent Control Authority on 22.11.2019 and consequently having assailed in appeal, the appeal was dismissed by the order dated 25.04.2022 (Annexure P-1). 10. Reading of the petition would show that primarily the petition before the Rent Control Authority was under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 and Section 12(2) Schedule-2 Clause 11(a) & 11(h) has been reproduced herein before. The issue No.2 which was framed by the Rent Control Authority was with respect to the need of the premises by the landlord on the bonafide basis. The application before the Rent Control Tribunal was particularly with a plea that it is under Section 12(2) Schedule-2 Clause 11(h) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011. 11. 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, it only requires that 6 months notice to the tenant in writing would be necessary, however on the condition that the accommodation will not be leased out at a higher rent for atleast 12 months thereafter. 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 will make the Act of 2011 as porous. When the statutory mandate do not require any such “bonafide” requirement, it cannot be read in while deciding an issue under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011. The authorities are bound by the statute. When the statutory mandate do not require any such “bonafide” requirement, it cannot be read in while deciding an issue under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011. The authorities are bound by the statute. Though the insertion of word “bonafide” appears to be simple, but would have a devastating effect if is considered as against the object of the Act of 2011. 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. 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 uncertainity. By substance addition of word, the object of statute cannot be defeated. 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. Consequently, we deem it proper to set aside the order of the Rent Control Tribunal and frame the issue as under : “Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the vacant possession of the premises as per provisions of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011.” 12. With such observation, the petition stands allowed.