[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Halima Begam vs Rafiq Ahmad on 11 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:11537-DB
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Order reserved on 28-02-2026
Order delivered on 11-03-2026
JYOTI
SHARMA
Digitally signed by
WPC No. 1752 of 2023
JYOTI SHARMA
Date: 2026.03.11
17:00:36 +0530 Smt. Halima Begam W/o Shri Rafiq Ahmad Aged About 57 Years R/o
Bhim Nagar, Ambedkar Chowk Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh. Through Power Of Attorney Holder Abdul Razik Ahmad,
S/o Shri Rafiq Ahmad, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Bhim Nagar,
Ambedkar Chowk Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. Rafiq Ahmad S/o Late Nazir Ahmad Aged About 65 Years R/o Bhim
Nagar, Ambedkar Chowk Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
2. Mustak Ahmad S/o Late Nazir Ahmad Aged About 56 Years R/o
(Ahmad Manzil), Aamapara Chowk, In Front Of Lakhe Nagar Road,
Nagar Nigam Complex, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Mumtaz Ahmad S/o Late Nazir Ahmad Aged About 54 Years R/o
(Ahmad Manzil), Aamapara Chowk, In Front Of Lakhe Nagar Road,
Nagar Nigam Complex, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4. Rustam Ahmad S/o Late Nazir Ahmad Aged About 52 Years R/o
(Ahmad Manzil), Aamapara Chowk, In Front Of Lakhe Nagar Road,
Nagar Nigam Complex, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
5. Ibrahim S/o Late Nazir Ahmad Aged About 50 Years R/o (Ahmad
2
Manzil), Aamapara Chowk, In Front Of Lakhe Nagar Road, Nagar
Nigam Complex, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
6. Anwar S/o Late Nazir Ahmad Aged About 45 Years R/o (Ahmad
Manzil), Aamapara Chowk, In Front Of Lakhe Nagar Road, Nagar
Nigam Complex, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Pranjpe, Senior Advocate along with
Mr. Arpan Verma, Advocate
For Respondent : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Ratnesh Agrawal, Advocate
No. 2 to 6
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
C A V Order
Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
1. Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Arpan
Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Aditi
Singhvi, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Ratnesh
Kumar Agrawal, Counsel for Respondents No. 2 to 6.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayers:
" 1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders,
direction/directions quashing the order passed
by the Rent Control Tribunal dated 24.03.2023
passed in Appeal No. 35A/2022 and the Hon'ble
Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order
dated 24.05.2022 passed by the Rent Control
Authority and the application preferred by the
petitioner under Section 12(2) read with
Schedule 2 of Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act,
2011 may kindly be allowed.
2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is
deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case."
3. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual
backdrop :-
((a) The petitioner/ landlord instituted proceedings before
the Rent Control Authority under Section 12(2), Schedule II
of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 seeking eviction
of the respondents from the tenanted premises and recovery
of arrears of rent. The said proceedings were filed on
24.09.2015 stating that, the property situated at Amapara,
presently Ward Tatyapara, Raipur, bearing House Nos. 583
to 586 admeasuring approximately 3000 sq. ft., originally
belonged to Sant Dayal and Radhabai. On partition they
obtained 1500 sq.ft. each. The disputed shop measuring 14
x 20 (280 sq. ft.) fall in the share of Radhabai. The
petitioner herein purchased the said share of Radhabai by a
registered sale deed dated 14.02.2000 and thereby became
the owner of the land of 1500 sq.ft., which includes the
disputed shop. It is further the case of the petitioner that late
Nazir Ahmad, who is her father-in-law and father of
respondent No. 1 to 6 herein, had taken the disputed shop
on rent in the year 1977-78 from the previous owner at a
monthly rent of Rs.110/- and was running a grocery
business therein under the name "Ahmed Kirana Stores."
After his demise, the respondents, being his legal heirs,
continued in possession of the disputed shop and carried on
business therein. Upon purchase of the property by the
petitioner, the respondents became her tenants by operation
of law. The petitioner has averred that the respondents
failed to pay rent regularly and that arrears for the preceding
three years at the rate of Rs.110/- per month had
accumulated, amounting to Rs.3,960/- along with interest. A
legal notice dated 04.02.2015 was issued by the petitioner
through registered post demanding vacant possession of the
disputed shop and payment of arrears of rent. Though the
respondents, in their reply dated 15.04.2015, admitted the
tenancy of late Nazir Ahmad and their continued occupation
after his death, they disputed the petitioner's ownership by
raising objections to the sale deed dated 14.02.2000. The
petitioner denied such objections and asserted her exclusive
ownership over the property. It is stated that despite service
of notice and expiry of six months therefrom, the
respondents neither handed over vacant possession nor
paid the arrears of rent. On these averments, the petitioner
approached the Rent Control Authority seeking eviction of
the respondents from the disputed shop and recovery of
arrears of rent with interest.
(b) In their written statement before the Rent Control
Authority, the respondents primarily contended that the
parties belong to the same family and that the present
dispute is essentially a family dispute given the colour of a
landlord-tenant matter. They denied the exclusive ownership
of the applicant over the property in question and asserted
that the property is joint family property of late Nazir Ahmad
and his legal heirs. Though admitting that late Nazir Ahmad
was a tenant under the original owner Radhabai, the
respondents denied that any landlord-tenant relationship
ever came into existence between them and the petitioner.
They alleged that the sale deed dated 14.02.2000 was
obtained in the name of the petitioner by a family member
i.e. respondent No.1 (husband of petitioner) out of joint
family income and without the consent of other members,
and therefore the petitioner cannot claim independent title.
On these grounds, asserting absence of landlord-tenant
relationship and existence of a family dispute regarding title,
the respondents sought dismissal of the proceedings.
(c) The Rent Controller, upon consideration of the pleadings
and evidence, rejected the claim of the petitioner by order
dated 24.05.2022. It was observed that although respondent
No. 3 admitted that late Nazir Ahmad was a tenant under the
erstwhile owner Radhabai and that after his death the
business devolved upon his legal heirs (including the
petitioner's husband), the respondents had specifically
denied any landlord-tenant relationship with the petitioner.
The Authority further noted that, despite claiming ownership
of the disputed shop, the petitioner failed to produce any
documentary evidence, such as a rent agreement or other
material, to establish that the respondents were her tenants.
In the absence of proof of a subsisting landlord-tenant
relationship between the parties, the Authority concluded
that the petitioner had failed to prove her case and
accordingly dismissed the application for eviction and
arrears of rent.
(d) Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent
Controller, the petitioner preferred Appeal No. 35A/2022
under Section 13 of the Act, while the respondents filed
Appeal No. 37A/2022 challenging the finding regarding
ownership. The Appellate Tribunal, upon reappreciation of
the material available on record by its order dated
24.03.2023, held that the grounds raised by the parties in
their respective appeals were not substantiated. It was
observed that no case for interference with the order passed
by the Rent Control Authority was made out. Accordingly,
Appeal No. 35-A/2022 filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
Similarly, Appeal No. 37-A/2022 filed by respondent was
also dismissed, holding that both the parties had failed to
prove their case.
Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Rent Controller and
the Tribunal, the petitioner herein preferred this petition.
4. (A) Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that the impugned orders passed by the Rent Control Authority
and affirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal are illegal, erroneous
and contrary to the provisions of law and material available on
record. It is submitted that both the authorities have failed to
properly appreciate the categorical admissions made by the
respondents in their written reply as well as in their evidence,
wherein they admitted that the disputed shop was originally let out
by Radha Bai to their predecessor, Nazir Ahmad, and that they
are continuing in possession after his death. In view of such clear
admission, the finding that the relationship of landlord and tenant
is not proved is perverse and unsustainable. Learned counsel
further submits that both the authorities have failed to appreciate
the true import and effect of Section 109 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882, which clearly provides that the transferee of
the lessor steps into the shoes of the original landlord and is
entitled to all rights of the lessor, including the right to seek
eviction and recover arrears of rent. It is further contended that
the finding of the Rent Controller, that the landlord-tenant
relationship is not proved merely on the ground of absence of a
written rent agreement between the petitioner and the
respondents is wholly unsustainable in law. Once ownership of
the petitioner and the original tenancy under Radha Bai were
admitted, the petitioner, being successor-in-interest, automatically
acquired the status of landlord.
(B) It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider
that the object of the Act of 2011 is to regulate landlord-tenant
relationship and not to defeat legitimate rights of a landlord on
mere technicalities. The reasoning that absence of a rent
agreement disentitles the petitioner from seeking eviction is
contrary to the scheme and object of the Act. Learned counsel
submits that after recording findings that Radha Bai was the
original landlord, that she had sold the property to the petitioner,
and that Nazir Ahmad was her tenant, the authorities below ought
to have held that the petitioner, as transferee landlord, is entitled
to enforce the tenancy rights and seek eviction and arrears of
rent. It is thus submitted that the findings with regard to non-
existence of landlord-tenant relationship are contrary to
admissions on record, contrary to Section 109 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882, and contrary to the object and scheme of the
Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011. The impugned orders, being
perverse and contrary to law, are liable to be set aside.
(C) Learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment of the
Utsav Dey Vs. Sushil Kumar Bhadraja passed in W.P.227 No.
2/2018 decided on 09.08.2018, wherein it has been held that non-
compliance of Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act,
2011, regarding filing or registration of tenancy agreement, does
not entail dismissal of eviction proceedings. It has been clearly
observed that the Act of 2011 does not provide any fatal
consequence for non-registration of agreement and the object of
the Act cannot be defeated on such technical ground. He also
placed reliance in the case of Mahanti Shikshan Samiti & Ors.
Vs. Smt. Vasanti Vasudev Bhagdikar & Anr. (WP227 No. 248 of
2025 decided on 07.10.2025) and other connected matter and
Shrawan Kumar Saraf Vs. Ravikant Mishra & Ors. (WPC No.
650 of 2020 decided on 18.07.2022) by which this Court observed
that non compliance of Section 4 of the Rent Control Act shall not
debar the land lord to pursue petition for eviction. Learned
counsel would submit that both the matters also travelled up to
Supreme Court, wherein the Supreme court disposed off the
petitions directing the tenants to vacate the premises and hand
over the vacant and peaceful possession to the landlord.
5. (i) Learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 6, countering the
aforesaid contention of the petitioner, submits that the present
petition is devoid of merit and the impugned orders passed by the
learned Rent Control Authority and affirmed by the learned Rent
Control Tribunal are well reasoned, based on proper appreciation
of evidence, and do not call for interference under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India. It is submitted that though the petitioner
claims to have purchased the disputed shop by registered sale
deed dated 14.02.2000, the respondents have consistently taken
the stand that the property was purchased in the name of the
petitioner from the joint income of Ahmed Kirana Store and,
therefore, the respondents are co-owners in possession. The said
fact was specifically disclosed in reply to the legal notices dated
22.10.2014 and 04.02.2015, and the petitioner has suppressed
material facts in earlier proceedings.
(ii) The respondents have categorically denied the existence of
any landlord-tenant relationship between the parties and have
specifically stated in reply to notice dated 04.02.2015 that they are
not tenants but are in possession as co-owners. Therefore, the
foundational requirement under Sections 2(5) and 2(14) of the
Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 has not been established.
Further, after enactment of the Act of 2011, Section 4 mandates
filing of tenancy agreement before the Rent Controller; however,
no rent agreement or rent receipt has been produced, and there is
no documentary evidence showing payment of rent by the
respondents to the petitioner, which supports the concurrent
finding that no landlord-tenant relationship exists.
(iii) Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner herself did
not enter the witness box and instead examined her son as power
of attorney holder, who is incompetent to depose regarding
matters within the personal knowledge of the principal. Reliance is
placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Mohinder Kaur v. Sant Paul Singh reported in (2019) 9 SCC
358 wherein it has been held that failure of a party to enter the
witness box may give rise to adverse presumption. It is also
submitted that respondent No. 3 had instituted Civil Suit No. 106-
A/2016 for declaration of title, which was dismissed by judgment
and decree dated 06.11.2023, and First Appeal No. 18/2024 is
pending consideration before this Court, and therefore summary
proceedings under the Rent Control Act are not appropriate.
(iv) Learned counsel contends that Section 109 of the Transfer
of Property Act, 1882 is not attracted in absence of proof of
tenancy. Reliance is also placed upon Onkar Prasad Sajwani v.
Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal (WPS No. 5576 of 2022
decided on 11.09.2024). It is lastly submitted that both authorities
have concurrently held that the petitioner failed to establish
landlord-tenant relationship, and such findings of fact do not
warrant interference in writ jurisdiction. Hence, the writ petition
deserves to be dismissed.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
7. On perusal of the judgment passed by the Rent Control Authority,
it is evident that the Rent Control Authority framed the following
issues for adjudication: (i) whether the disputed accommodation
was purchased by the petitioner and whether she is its owner; (ii)
whether there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between
her and the respondents; (iii) whether, despite service of statutory
notice, the respondents failed to deliver vacant possession and
pay arrears of rent; and (iv) whether the petitioner is entitled to
eviction and recovery of arrears.
8. While deciding Issue No. 1, the Authority recorded a categorical
finding that the petitioner had proved her ownership over the
disputed premises on the basis of the registered sale deed dated
14.02.2000 and the documentary evidence adduced on record.
However, in respect of Issue No. 2, the Authority also took note of
the fact that both the parties belong to the same family. It was not
in dispute that late Nazir Ahmad, father-in-law of the petitioner,
was the original tenant under the previous owner Radha Bai and
that, after the death of said Nazir Ahmad, his legal heirs continued
in possession of the shop in dispute. The record further reflected
that the husband of the petitioner, respondent No.1 herein, was
also one of the legal heirs of late Nazir Ahmad, and thus the
parties are closely related and claiming through the same
predecessor. Although the petitioner established her ownership
over the disputed shop by virtue of the registered sale deed dated
14.02.2000, both the Rent Control Authority and the Tribunal
observed that mere ownership, particularly in the backdrop of a
family relationship and succession to the business by the heirs of
the original tenant, does not automatically establish a jural
relationship of landlord-tenant. In the absence of clear evidence of
attornment, payment of rent, or any documentary proof e.g. rent
agreement or rent receipts demonstrating that the respondents
recognized the petitioner as the owner of the shop in dispute, the
Court rightly held that the relationship of landlord-tenant does not
exist between the parties herein. In so far as Issue No. 3 is
concerned, the Authority held that the statutory notice under
Section 12(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act was duly
served upon the respondents. Nevertheless, in view of the
negative finding on Issue No. 2 regarding the absence of
landlord-tenant relationship, the Authority answered Issue No. 4
against the petitioner and concluded that she was not entitled to a
decree of eviction or recovery of arrears of rent. On this
reasoning, the application was dismissed.
9. Upon consideration of the impugned order and the material
available on record, this Court finds that the Appellate Tribunal
has rightly affirmed the findings of the Rent Control Authority. In
Appeal No. 35-A/2022, filed by Halima Begum, the Tribunal
observed that although the petitioner relied upon the sale deed
dated 14.02.2000 to assert ownership, no cogent evidence was
produced to establish the existence of a landlord-tenant
relationship with the respondents. The record reflected that for
nearly 15 years after the alleged purchase no rent was
demanded, nor was any notice issued treating the respondents as
tenants. Even the notice dated 04.02.2015 claimed rent only for
the preceding three years. In absence of proof of attornment or
payment of rent, the finding that the tenancy was not established
was held to be justified. Even the petitioner is the daughter-in-law
of Nazir Ahmed and the family members of Nazir Ahmed were in
possession and operating a General Store. The relationship of the
petitioner with the respondents is also having importance to
decide the landlord tenant relation. Thus, in absence of proof
regarding landlord-tenant relationship and the pendency of appeal
before this Court bearing FA No.18 of 2024 regarding the same
issue, the petition of eviction itself is not maintainable.
10. It is also necessary to mention here that in Appeal No. 37-A/2022,
preferred by the respondent herein, the Tribunal found that the
determination of ownership was based on the registered sale
deed and evidence on record, and that no jurisdictional error or
illegality was committed in deciding the issues framed. The
objections regarding Issue Nos. 1, 3 and 5 were found to be
without merit. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed.
11. Further, proceedings under Section 12(2) read with Schedule II of
the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 are maintainable only
where the foundational requirement of existence of a "landlord"
and "tenant", as defined under Sections 2(5) and 2(14) of the Act
of 2011, is established. The burden to prove such relationship
squarely lies upon the petitioner who seeks eviction and recovery
of arrears of rent.
12. In the present case, though the Rent Control Authority recorded a
categorical finding that the petitioner had proved her ownership
over the disputed premises on the basis of the registered sale
deed dated 14.02.2000, it concurrently held that the petitioner
failed to establish that the respondents were her tenants. The
Authority specifically noticed absence of any rent agreement, rent
receipt, proof of payment of rent, or evidence of attornment in
favour of the petitioner after the alleged purchase. It was further
observed that for nearly fifteen years after the purchase no rent
was demanded, and even the notice dated 04.02.2015 claimed
arrears only for the preceding three years. On such appreciation
of evidence, Issue No. 2 relating to landlord-tenant relationship
was decided against the petitioner, resulting in dismissal of the
application.
13. It is evident from the record that the authorities below have not
rejected the claim of the petitioner merely on the ground of non-
production of a rent receipt or rent agreement. On the contrary,
the Rent Control Authority, upon a comprehensive appreciation of
the pleadings and evidence, examined all relevant aspects
pertaining to the alleged landlord-tenant relationship and
recorded a finding that the same was not established in
accordance with law. While doing so, the Authority also took note
of the fact that the dispute between the parties substantially
relates to ownership and title over the property in question. In this
backdrop, and particularly in view of the pendency of the First
Appeal before this Court arising out of the civil proceedings
concerning title, the statutory authorities declined to grant the
relief sought under the summary provisions of the Rent Control
Act. The Appellate Tribunal, upon reappreciation of the material,
concurred with the said reasoning and found no justification to
interfere.
14. The Supreme Court in the matter of Deepak Tandon & Anr. Vs.
Rajesh Kumar Gupta reported in (2019) 5 SCC 537 has held that
concurrent findings recorded of the facts of two courts below are
binding on the writ court and it is not open to interference in the
writ jurisdiction by this court.
15. Further as in view of the pendency of the First Appeal before this
Court bearing FA No.18 of 2024 arising out of the civil suit
concerning title, and in light of the concurrent findings recorded by
the statutory authorities regarding absence of proof of landlord-
tenant relationship as contemplated under Sections 2(5), 2(14)
and 12(2) of the Act of 2011, this Court is of the opinion that no
interference is warranted in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
16. It is well settled that where issues relating to title are pending
adjudication before the competent civil court, and the statutory
authorities have recorded concurrent findings on factual aspects,
this Court would not reappreciate evidence or disturb such
findings in writ jurisdiction. Any observation made in the present
proceedings shall not prejudice the rights of the parties in the
pending First Appeal.
17. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed, leaving it open to
the parties to pursue their remedies in the pending First Appeal, if
so advised.
18. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Jyoti/ Gowri
Head Note
Where a dispute relating to title of property is pending before the
competent civil Court and the statutory authorities have recorded a
concurrent finding on factual aspect, the writ Court should not disturb
such finding in its jurisdiction.
