ORDER : 1. The instant petition is filed against the order dated 17.10.2022, passed by the C.G. Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur. Learned Rent Control Tribunal by its order has affirmed the ejectment order dated 10.02.2021, passed by the Rent Control Authority, Dhamtari. 2. As per the case of the respondent (land-lord herein), she filed an application for ejectment after service of notice under the C.G. Rent Control Act, 2011 (herein after referred to as ‘Act of 2011’) stating that on a land owned by her, three shops were constructed and one of the shop was let out to the petitioner (tenant herein) on 23.12.2005. Subsequently, with the passage of time a notice was served to the petitioner under Section 12 (2) Schedule 2 Clause 11 (b) (d) and (h) of Act of 2011 for vacating the shop and since the tenant failed to vacate the shop after notice, an application was preferred before the Rent Control Authority, Dhamtari and ejectment order was passed. Thereafter, an appeal was filed by the petitioner herein (tenant) before the learned Rent Control Tribunal and learned Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur by its order dated 17.10.2022 has affirmed the said order of ejectment . The tenant being aggrieved by such order has preferred the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Rent Control Authority while passing the order of ejectment has not framed the issues and without framing the issues the lis has been adjudicated. He further submits that an application was filed for framing of the issues, but the same was also rejected. He further submits that apart from the grounds stated under clause 11 (h) of Schedule 2 of Act of 2011, the petition was filed by the landlord on the ground that tenant has caused substantial damage to the accommodation as enumerated under clause 11 (b) of Schedule 2 and has become social nuisance as per clause 11 (d) of Schedule 2 of Act of 2011, therefore, 6 months notice was mandatory but before that the petition was filed. He further submits that with respect to the other two shops the respondent (land-lord) got them vacated and further let it out to other tenants at higher prices. He further submits that it would also effect the need projected by the respondent. He further submits that with respect to the other two shops the respondent (land-lord) got them vacated and further let it out to other tenants at higher prices. He further submits that it would also effect the need projected by the respondent. He further submits that when this issue was placed before the learned Rent Control Authority with the proof of such fact, the same was dismissed without any application of mind. Consequently, there has been failure in exercise of jurisdiction by the Rent Control Authority and Rent Control Tribunal and the order of ejectment requires interference by this Court. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the given case before the Rent Control Authority, specific issue was not required to be framed and parties adduced their evidence knowing full well the subject on which they are litigating. He further submits that the notice of 6 months is not required in this case for the reason that the respondent (land-lord) is a senior citizen, therefore only one month notice would be required as per Section 12 (2) Schedule 2 clause 11 (h) of the Act of 2011, therefore, the order passed is well merited and do not call for any interference. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the records and pleadings. 6. Since the ejectment was sought for on the grounds mentioned in Section 12 (2) Schedule 2 clause 11 (b) (d) (h) of the Act of 2011, it would be relevant to reproduced the same. Clause 11 (b) (d) (h) of Schedule 2 of Section 12 (2) is reproduced hereinafter: 11. Right to seek from the Rent Controller eviction of the tenant on the following grounds: (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) If the tenant causes, or allows to be caused, substantial damage to the accommodation, for any reason whatsoever. (c) If the tenant uses the accommodation for purposes other than that for which it was leased out. (d) If the tenant becomes a social nuisance. (c) If the tenant uses the accommodation for purposes other than that for which it was leased out. (d) If the tenant becomes a social nuisance. (e) xxx xxx xxx (f) xxx xxx xxx (g) xxx xxx xxx (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: Provided, however, that in case of the following special categories of landlords and/ or their spouse desiring the accommodation back for own use, the period of notice shall be one month: current or retired government servants, widows, personnel of the armed forces, person coming to physical or mental handicap, and senior citizens (above the age of 65 years). 7. Perusal of the records would show that after the evidence of the parties was completed, the application was filed by the petitioner for framing of the issues under Order 14 Rule 1 of the CPC. The same was rejected by order dated 05.08.2020. 8. The Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the matter of Santosh Kumar Nishad vs. State of C.G. and Others, 2016 SCC Online Chh. 2160 : AIR 2016 Chh. 164 adjudicated the issue when exception can be carved out and effect of non framing of the issues and the Court reiterated the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the case of Arikala Narasa Reddy vs. Venkata Ram Reddy Reddygari, AIR 2014 SCC 1290 at Paras 13 and 14. 9. Paras 13 and 14 of the Arikala Narasa Reddy (Supra) is quoted below: “13. In Kalyan Singh Chouhan vs. C.P. Joshi, 2011 (11) SCC 786 the main dispute was whether one lady had cast her vote twice under two different names and whether the tendered votes cast in the election must be counted and whether six votes polled against the tendered votes must be rejected. In that case also margin of victory was only one vote. A prayer was made to summon certain documents with regard to the tendered votes. This prayer was rejected on the ground that these facts were not pleaded and no issue had been framed in respect of those tendered votes. In that case also margin of victory was only one vote. A prayer was made to summon certain documents with regard to the tendered votes. This prayer was rejected on the ground that these facts were not pleaded and no issue had been framed in respect of those tendered votes. An appeal was filed before the Apex Court wherein the elected candidate urged that the election petition has to be adjudicated strictly adhering to the statutory provisions and the Court cannot permit a party to lead evidence unless an issue has been framed on the controversy and an issue cannot be framed unless there are actual pleadings in respect thereof. We are not concerned with the second part because there is no allegation in the present case that the pleadings are lacking material particulars. The only allegation is that no issue was framed. With regard to non-framing of issues, the Apex Court in the said judgment held as follows: “25. The object of framing issues is to ascertain/shorten the area of dispute and pinpoint the points required to be determined by the court. The issues are framed so that no party at the trial is taken by surprise. It is the issues fixed and not the pleadings that guide the parties in the matter of adducing evidence. xxx xxx xxx 27. There may be an exceptional case wherein the parties proceed to trial fully knowing the rival case and lead all the evidence not only in support of their contentions but in refutation thereof by the other side. In such an eventuality, absence of an issue would not be fatal and it would not be permissible for a party to submit that there has been a mistrial and the proceedings stood vitiated.” 14. This view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Arikala Narasa Reddy vs. Venkata Ram Reddy Reddygari, 2014 (5) SCC 312 as follows: “16. There may be an exceptional case where the parties proceed to trial fully knowing the rival case and lead all the evidence not only in support of their contentions but in refutation of the case set up by the other side. Only in such circumstances, absence of an issue may not be fatal and a party may not be permitted to submit that there has been a mistrial and the proceedings stood vitiated.” 10. Only in such circumstances, absence of an issue may not be fatal and a party may not be permitted to submit that there has been a mistrial and the proceedings stood vitiated.” 10. Therefore, by applying the aforesaid principles, factually no dispute arises that the parties knowing full well the rival claims went into for adjudication and no prejudice was caused as the issue was confined to a limited extent. Therefore, the order which was passed by the learned Rent Control Authority on 05.08.2020, that the application was filed after the parties closed their evidence appears to be justified for the reason no prejudice was caused to the either parties. Now with respect to the issuance of notice in accordance with Section 12 (2) Schedule 2 clause 11 (h) of the Act of 2011, it states that “when the accommodation is sought for own use by the land-lord who belong to special category the period of notice is to be of 1 month and the special category includes senior citizens also who are aged above 65 years.” It is not in dispute that the land-lord and the tenant both are more than 65 years of age, therefore, when the notice has been served invoking the clause 11 (h) it would envelope the other cause also i.e. a senior citizen has served the notice seeking eviction on the ground supra. 11. Another submission has been made that documents have been placed on record to show that the land-lord has got the shops vacated in the adjacent area and let it out to third party on a higher rent. The Section 12 (2) Schedule 2 clause 11 (h) of the Act 2011 purports that the notice to the tenant in writing, without any obligation to assign any reason to get the premises vacate would be maintainable but on the condition that the accommodation is not let out for higher rent for a period of 12 months thereafter. Therefore, the respondent (land-lord) would be obliged to follow such mandate. The application filed by the land-lord would show that categorical statement was made that for 12 months, she would not let out the shop for higher rate after getting it vacated. Having regard to such statement made in the application the conditions of Section 12 (2) Schedule 2 clause 11 (h) have been satisfied. The application filed by the land-lord would show that categorical statement was made that for 12 months, she would not let out the shop for higher rate after getting it vacated. Having regard to such statement made in the application the conditions of Section 12 (2) Schedule 2 clause 11 (h) have been satisfied. Therefore, in our view after going through entire records, pleadings and evidence, we do not find any cause is made out for any interference. Further, taking into the fact that tenant (petitioner) appears to be senior citizen further 45 days from today is granted to him to vacate the shop. 12. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed off.