Chattisgarh High Court
H.S. Yadav, Director, Gayatri ... vs Shankuntala Devi Parakh on 20 December, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WP227 No. 496 of 2020
• H.S. Yadav, Director, Gayatri Institute Of Nursing, Shiv Mandir Ward-3, Naya
Pul Donga Ghat- Jagda Industrial Estate, Pagaria House, Wardhman
Colony, Jagdalpur, Bastar - Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Shankuntala Devi Parakh W/o Late Gyanchand Parakh, R/o Circuit House
Road, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh.
2. Rent Control Officer, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh.
3. Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri Vipin Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondents : Shri Shashank Thakur with Shri
Atanu Ghosh, Advocates
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri
Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi
Judgment on Board
Per Goutam Bhaduri, J.
20/12/20 21
Heard.
1. The challenge is this petition is to the order dated 18.02.2019 passed
by Rent Control Tribunal whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner
against the eviction order dated 04.10.2018 was dismissed on the ground
of delay.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has
already vacated the premises, however certain goods in the premises were
remaining which has been locked. He further submits that by cursory order
without assigning any reason, the appeal against order of eviction dated
04.10.2018 has been dismissed whereby the arrears of rent and eviction
order was passed. He further submits that sufficient reasons were stated
before the Rent Control Tribunal to condone the delay in filling the appeal.
He would submit that the tribunal should have considered and heard the
appeal on merits as no exorbitant delay was caused. He would submit that
only 34 days delay was there in filing the appeal and sufficient reasons
were assigned, therefore the order dated 18.02.2019 (Annexure P-1) be
set aside.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the order of Rent
Control Tribunal is well merited and after due consideration of the reasons
which have been assigned, the delay was refused to be condoned,
therefore no interference is called for.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused order dated 18.02.2019.
5. We have considered the reasons assigned and at the outset the
submission of the petitioner is that he has already vacated the premises for
which the eviction decree was passed on 04.10.2018. Therefore, we deem
it proper to hold that the issue of possession is no longer res integra before
the Rent Control Tribunal and the petitioner shall not be allowed to raise
that ground before the Court below against order for vacating premises.
With respect to the dismissal of the appeal which is preferred before the
Rent Control Tribunal, a perusal of the order would show that reason was
assigned that on 21.11.2018, the petitioner went to his counsel to enquire
about the date of hearing wherein it was informed that he is not appearing
in the case. Subsequently, it was enquired from the clerk of the Rent
Control Authority wherein it was reveled that the eviction order and the
orders of arrears have already been passed on 04.10.2018. Thereafter, the
application was filed on 26.11.2018 and eventually appeal was filed before
the Rent Control Tribunal on 10.12.2018. Prima Facie, it shows that delay
of 34 days was caused. The delay of 34 days which has been caused in
filing of this appeal, appears to have been supported by the reason
assigned. A perusal of the application for condonation of delay along with
the affidavit would show that petitioner consulted his counsel on 21.11.2018
and he was informed that he was not attending the case and was not aware
about the status. Subsequently, he went to Rent Control Authority for
enquiring wherein it was reveled that the application has been disposed off
by order dated 04.10.2018 and the certified copy of the order was applied
for on 26.11.2018 which was delivered on 27.11.2018 and thereafter the
application was filed.
6. Therefore, considering the fact, prima facie it appears that there is no
exorbitant delay. It appears that petitioner was dependent on the counsel
and if the counsel has not appeared for reason whatsoever, in that case
considering the number of days for which delay is caused, the petitioner
cannot be made to suffer. Under the circumstances, we deem it proper to
condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal and
it is directed that Rent control Tribunal shall decide the appeal on merits.
Accordingly, it is directed that order dated 18.02.2019 (Annexure P-1) is
set aside and the appeal is remitted back to the Rent Control Tribunal to
hear it on the merits with the exception as observed supra.
7. With such observation, the petition stands disposed off.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Goutam Bhaduri) (N. K. Chandravanshi )
Judge Judge
Jyoti
