[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
M/S Manohar Hardware Mart vs Shri Rishabh Dev Mandir Trust on 9 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:11160-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SHYNA
AJAY
Digitally signed by
SHYNA AJAY
DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY,
o=PERSONAL,
st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN
WP227 No. 269 of 2026
1 - M/s Manohar Hardware Mart (Formerly Known As M/s Ferumal And
Sons), Through Proprietor Manohar Motwani, S/o Late Parmanand
Motwani, Presently Aged About 69 Years, Address- Dadabaadi Parisar,
M.G. Road, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur C.G.
2 - Manohar Motwani S/o Late Parmanand Motwani, Aged About 69
Years, Address- Dadabaadi Parisar, M.G. Road, Raipur, Tehsil And
District Raipur C.G. (Non-Applicants)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
Shri Rishabh Dev Mandir Trust Through Acting President and Trustee
Shri Abhay Bhansali, Address- Rishabh Dev Jain Mandir, Sadar Bazar,
Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur C.G. (Applicant)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Soni, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : None
2
DB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal &
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
09/03/2026
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.
1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioners assail the impugned
order dated 25.4.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Rent
Controlling Authority, Raipur as also the consequential impugned
appellate order dated 15.1.2026 (Annexure P/2) passed by the
Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur.
2. The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs in the
petition:
"10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash and the impugned order dated 15/1/26
(Annexure P-2) and remand the case for adjudication
on merits by giving opportunity to petitioners to file
return and led their defense in the interest of justice
and for the proper adjudication of the case.
10.2) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call
for the entire records of the court below, for kind
perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
10.3) This Hon'ble Court may also be pleased to grant
the cost of the petition to the petitioners.
10.4) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem
fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the
petitioners in the interest of justice.
3. Facts, briefly stated, are that the respondent/landlord filed a suit
for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent asserting, inter alia,
that the Trust is the owner of the disputed land situated in
Dadabadhi and Mahavir Bhawan. The respondent averred in the
subject application that the Trust owns several shops and
godowns on the said land. Among the tenants are the petitioners,
who were inducted into one of the shops at a monthly rent of
Rs.1035/-. It was further averred that the petitioners failed to pay
the rent since 1.1.2021 and as per the provisions contained under
Section 12 (2) read with Serial No 1 (a) & (b) of Schedule 2 of
the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (in short "the Act, 2011"),
they are liable for eviction. Pursuant to the provisions of the Act,
2011, the respondent sent a legal notice to the petitioners on
27.12.2019, seeking vacation of the rented premises. The notice
was issued on the ground that the respondent requires the shop
and surrounding area for renovation, as the existing structure is in
a dilapidated condition. However, despite the receipt of the legal
notice, the petitioners did not vacate the rented premises. This
compelled the respondent to file an application before the Rent
Controlling Authority (in short 'the RCA") for eviction of the
petitioners and recovery of arrears of rent. In the said case, notice
was issued and the petitioners appeared through counsel.
However, the petitioners' counsel subsequently ceased to appear
for reasons unknown. Thereafter, by order dated 25.4.2024, the
RCA allowed the application, observing that although the notice to
vacate was issued on 27.12.2019, the petitioners had not vacated
the premises even after expiry of the six-month period. While the
RCA held that there was no default in the payment of rent, it
nonetheless passed an order of eviction. Aggrieved by the same
and upon gaining the knowledge of the eviction order, the
petitioners preferred an appeal before the Chhattisgarh Rent
Control Tribunal, Raipur. Though the appeal was initially
dismissed on the ground of delay, the petitioners challenged the
dismissal in WPC No.2519/2025 and vide order dated 27.11.2025,
this Court set-aside the dismissal and remanded the matter to the
Tribunal for fresh adjudication on merits. Subsequently, the
Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, after hearing the
parties, dismissed the appeal and upheld the findings and order
passed by the RCA. It is contended that the Tribunal passed the
impugned order without considering the contentions raised by the
petitioners/tenants. Hence, this Petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners (tenants) submits that both the
Courts below have committed an error of law by allowing the suit
for eviction without considering the aspect that the relationship of
landlord and tenant was not proved in the case. The petitioners
are in possession of the suit property since 1957 under a license
arrangement and as such, the provisions of the Act, 2011 are
inapplicable to the present dispute. He further submits that the
record is bereft of any documentary evidence to establish a
landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. By failing to
produce such proof, the respondent/landlord has circumvented
the appropriate civil remedies available under the law, therefore,
the present suit is totally misconceived. He further submits that
the petitioners were denied a fair opportunity of being heard and
were erroneously proceeded against ex-parte. Accordingly, the
RCA passed the eviction order in the absence of any defence on
rebuttal. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that an
order premised on such a procedural vacuum is per se illegal, as
it violates the fundamental principles of natural justice. When an
appeal was filed, the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal,
dismissed it in a casual and perfunctory manner, without due
consideration of the legal grounds raised therein. In view of the
above backdrop, the matter ought to be remanded for fresh
consideration, to ensure that the petitioners are afforded a proper
opportunity of being heard and to submit their defence on merits.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants and
also perused the documents annexed with the petition.
6. Admittedly, the impugned order passed by the Rent Controlling
Authority would show that prior to filing the application for eviction,
a notice was duly served upon the petitioners. Thereafter, an
application for eviction was filed in accordance with Section 12(2)
of the Act, 2011.
7. From a bare perusal of the record, it is apparent that on
19.4.2022, notices were directed to be issued and the case was
fixed for 12.5.2022. On that date, counsel appeared on behalf of
the petitioners/tenants and the matter was subsequently fixed for
30.5.2022. On the latter date, a Vakalatnama was filed on behalf
of the petitioners/tenants and the counsel entered appearance. A
request for time to file the reply was made and the matter was
accordingly fixed for 24.6.2022, for filing of reply to the eviction
application. On 24.6.2022, counsel for the petitioners/tenants
appeared and obtained the relevant documents to prepare a reply.
The matter was further fixed for filing of reply on 22.7.2022, on
which date neither the petitioners nor their counsel appeared.
The proceedings were subsequently adjourned through several
dates i.e. 20.9.2022, 6.10.2022, 15.11.2022 and again on
12.12.2022, before being fixed on 13.1.2023 for filing of reply. On
that date, the Presiding Officer being occupied with other
administrative exigencies, the matter was further adjourned to
2.2.2023. On 2.2.2023, the Court granted a last opportunity to
file the reply and fixed the matter for 15.2.2023. However, on the
said date, owing to condolence proceedings, the matter was
adjourned to 2.3.2023. On that date, on account of the continued
absence of the petitioners and their counsel, the RCA proceeded
against them ex-parte. Notably, even after ex-parte proceedings
were initiated, no application was preferred for setting aside the
same. This procedural lapse lead to the eventual passing of the
eviction order in the absence of a contested trial.
8. In view of the aforementioned facts, it is evident that while the
petitioners/tenants were granted ample opportunities, they failed
to submit a reply or to appear before the Court. Furthermore,
they neglected to file any application to set-aside the ex-parte
order. The RCA, after considering the entire record, rightly
identified the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship.
Moreover, the landlord demanded arrears for nine months
(1.1.2021 to 30.9.2021) amounting to Rs.9315/-, upon which, the
tenants/petitioners paid rent up to February 2023. The fact that
the tenants subsequently paid rent up to February 2023 itself is
suggestive of the existence of tenancy and serves as a clear
admission of the landlord-tenant relationship. Consequently, the
argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners that
such a relationship has not been proved is devoid of merit.
9. Furthermore, the act of paying an amount to the landlord by the
tenant serves as sufficient evidence regarding the acceptance of
a landlord-tenant relationship. In a judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bismillah Be (Dead) By
Legal Representatives Vs. Majeed Shah reported in (2017) 2
SCC 274, the following was held in para 24 :
24. Law relating to derivative title of the landlord (lessor) and
challenge, if made, to such title by the tenant (lessee) during
subsistence of tenancy in relation to demised property is
fairly well settled. Though by virtue of Section 116 of the
Evidence Act, 1872, the tenant is estopped from challenging
the title of his landlord during continuance of the tenancy,
yet the tenant/lessee is entitled to challenge the derivative
title of an assignee/vendee of the original landlord (lessor) of
the demised property in an action brought by the
assignee/vendee against the tenant for his eviction from the
demised property under the rent laws. This right of a tenant
is, however, subject to one caveat that the tenant/lessee has
not attorned to the assignee/vendee. In other words, if the
tenant/lessee pays rent to the assignee/vendee of the
tenanted property then it results in creation of an attornment
between the parties which, in turn, deprives the
tenant/lessee to challenge the derivative title of an
assignee/vendee in the proceedings.
10. Likewise, in the matter of Som Nath Vs. Ravinder Kumar (Civil
Appeal No.4484/2025 decided on 25.3.2025), the following was
observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 12, 13 & 14 :
12. The next submission on behalf of the respondent that in
view of there being an agreement of sale and decree of
specific performance in favour of respondent the landlord-
tenant relationship between the parties ceased to exist, is
completely misconceived for the following reasons.
13. As per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882 a contract for the sale of immovable property is a
contract that a sale of such property shall take place on
terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself
create any interest in or charge on such property. Thus,
even if the suit for specific performance is decreed, without
a specific decree for transfer of the possession of the suit
property, the same can be enforced only when the court
directs the judgment- debtor to convey the suit property to
the decree holder. It is only after registration that the
transfer of title would take place from one to the other.
14. In the instant case, admittedly, the decree for specific
performance was a conditional decree and the decree
holder (the respondent herein) had failed to fulfill the
condition and, therefore, the decree could not fructify into a
conveyance. In such circumstances, there was no transfer
of property from the appellant to the respondent. Thus,
there was no termination of landlord-tenant relationship
between the parties by virtue of Section 111(d) of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In consequence, there was
no good reason for the High Court to set aside concurrent
findings of fact returned by the two courts below.
11. So far as the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners
contending that they were proceeded ex-parte due to the
negligence of their counsel, we are of the view that such a claim is
wholly unfounded and lacks any evidentiary basis. Furthermore,
there is nothing on record to show that any application was ever
moved by the petitioners before the RCA stating that they could
not appear due to the fault of their advocate; similarly no
application was preferred for setting aside the ex-parte
proceedings. The petitioners' current pleas appear to be
indicative of a deliberate attempt to employ dilatory tactics, aimed
at prolonging the litigation and avoiding the consequences of the
trial Court's proceedings. The petitioners were afforded ample
opportunity to file their reply, which they chose to avoid for
reasons best known to them. Therefore, the arguments advanced
by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners' non-
appearance was due to the lapses of their advocate is untenable
and cannot be justified.
12. Evidently, the petitioners/tenants have been in occupation of the
subject property since 1957, as stated in the present petition. This
goes to show that from 1957 to the present date, no proceedings
were initiated by the tenants to establish any independent right. It
is only upon filing of an application for eviction that they have in
their defence raised a ground which was neither brought before
the concerned RCA by way of a reply nor raised before any other
authority at any point of time.
13. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that there is
no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders passed by the
Rent Controlling Authority, Raipur as well as the Chhattisgarh
Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur. The petitioners/tenants have
miserably failed to raise any cogent ground warranting
interference with the concurrent findings of the authorities below.
14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be
and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge Judge
Shyna Ajay
