1 - Pratap L. Jesrani S/o Late Laxman Das Jesrani Aged About 81 Years v. 1 - Ajay Kumar Thawait S/o Late Babu Lal Thawait Aged About 51 Years
Case Details
1 / 10 2025:CGHC:35749-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 217 of 2025 1 - Pratap L. Jesrani S/o Late Laxman Das Jesrani Aged About 81 Years Proprietor- Sarswati Trading Company R/o Tulsi Marg, Korba, Distt.- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ajay Kumar Thawait S/o Late Babu Lal Thawait Aged About 51 Years R/o Puarni Basti, Korba, Thana, Tehsil And Distt.- Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners For Respondent : : Mr. Sanjay Patel Advocate Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Smt. Rajni Dubey, Judge
Legal Reasoning
is ex facie bad in law, arbitrary, and illegal, being contrary to the established legal principles applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Rent Control Tribunal has failed to appreciate the binding legal effect of its own findings in the appellate order dated 27.06.2024. The Tribunal, having categorically held that the eviction application filed under Section 23 of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 was not maintainable, ought to have stayed the execution of the eviction order, which has now been rendered void ab initio and non-est in the eyes of law. The finding of Tribunal itself nullifies the foundation on which the execution is being carried out. It is settled law that a void or non-est order cannot be allowed to be executed, and in the present case, the Authority is proceeding to execute an order which has already been declared without jurisdiction. The execution proceedings initiated on such basis are not only legally unsustainable but also a manifest abuse of process. The pendency of the review application ought to have weighed with the Tribunal while considering the stay application. Once the validity of the order under execution is under review and its maintainability has already been questioned, principles of fairness and judicial propriety 6 / 10 required that the execution proceedings be kept in abeyance. The Tribunal itself has held that the application filed under Section 23 of the 1961 Act is not maintainable, particularly in view of the coming into force of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011. Consequently, any order passed on the basis of such an application becomes inexecutable. The failure of Tribunal to stay the execution proceedings is in direct conflict with its own findings. The coram of the Tribunal is not complete, and therefore, the review application has not been finally heard. If the execution of a void order is permitted to proceed in the meantime, it would cause irreparable harm and grave prejudice to the petitioner, effectively rendering the pending review infructuous. The impugned order rejecting the stay application suffers from complete non-application of mind. No cogent reasons have been assigned for rejecting the prayer for stay. The absence of reasoning itself renders the order arbitrary
Arguments
Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge C A V ORDER Per Rajni Dubey, Judge 24/07/2025 1) The respondent filed an application under Section 23 of the Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, alleging that he had let out a shop to the Petitioner in 1972, and that rent had not been paid since December 2012, resulting in arrears of 48,300/-, ₹ 2 / 10 and therefore sought eviction. The Petitioner opposed the application, asserting that he had purchased the shop from the respondent on 13.12.1993 and that a civil suit for declaration of title is pending before the trial Court. It was also stated that the shop had been destroyed in a fire on 15.11.1993 during Diwali, and was reconstructed by the petitioner. Despite this, the Rent Controlling Authority allowed the application and passed an eviction order. On appeal, the Appellate Tribunal held that the application under Section 23 was not maintainable and dismissed the appeal on 27.06.2024. Thereafter, the respondent initiated execution proceedings on the basis of the said order. The petitioner filed a review application along with a prayer for stay of execution, which was summarily rejected by the Tribunal without due consideration, fixing a later date for hearing on the review. Aggrieved by which, petitioner has filed this petition seeking following reliefs : “10.1 It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur in MJC no. 14/2024. 10.2 It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased t issue an appropriate writ or order and quash the execution proceeding Revenue case no. 202408050100004/2023-24 pending before R control Authority, Korba [C.G.] between Ajay Kumar Thawait Vs Pra L Jesrani.” 2) Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the present petition is filed 3 / 10 in order to seek protection from an illegal and non-maintainable eviction order that is under execution. The petitioner was arrayed as the non-Applicant/tenant, and the respondent as the applicant/landlord before the learned Rent Control Authority, Korba [C.G.]. Accordingly, the status of the parties as Tenant (Petitioner) and Landlord (Respondent) is being maintained for the purpose of this petition. The respondent filed an application under Section 23 of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 read with the Rules of 1966, alleging that he had rented out a non-residential two-floor commercial shop (measuring 14' x 57', 798 sq. ft.), located at Ward No. 10, in front of Bunti Stores, Korba Main Road, District Korba [C.G.], to one Govind Ram Prahlad Rai Jerwani in the year 1972. It was further alleged that the Petitioner had not paid rent since December 2012, and a sum of 48,300/- was due. On this ₹ basis, eviction was sought. The Petitioner categorically denied the averments made in the eviction application and asserted that he had purchased the suit shop from the respondent on 13.12.1993. He further stated that the shop was destroyed in a fire incident during Diwali on 15.11.1993 and was subsequently reconstructed by him at his own cost. The petitioner has also filed a civil suit for declaration of title, which is currently pending before the competent trial Court. These facts were brought to the notice of the Rent Control Authority. Despite the objections raised by petitioner and the pendency of the title suit, the learned Rent Control Authority, 4 / 10 Korba, vide order dated 25.09.2023, allowed the eviction application. The Authority, relying on an alleged admission by the petitioner regarding tenancy, held that he was a tenant under Babulal (the respondent) and accordingly directed him to vacate the premises. Aggrieved by the eviction order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the eviction application filed under Section 23 of the 1961 Act was not maintainable, as the new Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 had come into force from 06.12.2012, and the application was filed later on 23.12.2015. However, despite holding that the original application was not maintainable, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 27.06.2024 instead of allowing it. Taking advantage of the dismissal of the appeal, the respondent initiated execution proceedings before the Rent Control Authority, seeking enforcement of the eviction order. Notices were issued to the petitioner in these proceedings. In view of the contradictory and erroneous findings in the appellate order, the petitioner filed a Review Application before the Rent Control Tribunal, along with a stay application. It was submitted that the Tribunal, having held the original application to be non-maintainable, ought to have allowed the appeal rather than dismissing it, and that the execution of a non-est order was causing grave prejudice to the petitioner. The Rent Control Tribunal, vide its order dated 20.12.2024, summarily rejected the stay application filed by petitioner, stating that there was no ground to interfere with the earlier order dated 27.06.2024. 5 / 10 However, it fixed a date for hearing of the review application. The rejection of stay, without applying judicial mind to the consequences of executing an order found to be non-maintainable, has left the petitioner remediless. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order
Decision
and liable to be set aside. In view of the above, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to stay the execution proceedings initiated on the strength of the void eviction order and direct the Tribunal to decide the pending review application on merits, in accordance with law. 4) Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petition is premature, misconceived, and devoid of merit. The petitioner has approached this Court even though the review petition filed by him is still pending before the Rent Control Tribunal. No final decision has yet been rendered in review proceedings, and therefore the 7 / 10 challenge at this stage is untenable. The petitioner seeks to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to stay execution proceedings despite the fact that the eviction order passed by the learned Rent Control Authority, Korba on 25.09.2023 remains in force and has not been set aside or stayed by any competent authority. It is important to note that the eviction order was passed after due consideration of evidence and pleadings, including the own admissions of petitioner regarding tenancy. The Rent Control Authority found the petitioner to be a tenant and held that he had failed to pay rent since December 2012. The legal consequences of non-payment of rent are clear and were rightly applied in this case. Although the Appellate Tribunal in its order dated 27.06.2024 observed that the eviction application was filed under a repealed statute, it did not set aside the eviction order nor did it allow the appeal. The appeal was dismissed. Therefore, the execution of the eviction order was rightly initiated by the respondent in accordance with law. The assertion made by learned counsel for petitioner that the eviction order is "void" or "non-est" is self-serving and legally unfounded. Until the eviction order is expressly set aside, recalled, or stayed by a competent authority, it continues to be binding and enforceable. The mere pendency of a review application cannot be a ground to halt execution of an otherwise valid and subsisting eviction order. Review proceedings are still to be adjudicated and no interim relief has been granted by the Tribunal. The petitioner cannot take 8 / 10 advantage of the pendency of review to delay lawful execution. The Tribunal, while rejecting the stay application vide order dated 20.12.2024, exercised its discretion judicially. The order may be brief, but absence of detailed reasons does not necessarily imply non-application of mind. The Tribunal considered all relevant aspects before rejecting the prayer for stay and fixed the matter for final hearing of review. The argument raised by learned counsel for petitioner that irreparable harm would be caused is speculative and not supported by any substantive prejudice. The petitioner has already exhausted the appellate remedy and is now attempting to frustrate execution on hyper-technical and procedural grounds, without challenging the eviction order itself on merits. It is also submitted that the civil suit filed by the petitioner for declaration of title is independent of the tenancy issue and cannot be used to stall execution of an eviction decree passed under rent control legislation. Civil title disputes must follow their own course and cannot override findings under the Rent Control Act. In light of the above, it is submitted that the petition is wholly devoid of merit. The respondent is entitled to proceed with execution of the eviction order dated 25.09.2023, which remains valid and binding. The attempt of petitioner to block execution merely on the basis of a pending review, without securing any stay or interim protection from the Tribunal, must be rejected. It is therefore prayed that this Court may be pleased to dismiss the writ petition in limine, with costs, and allow the execution proceedings to continue in accordance with law. 5) 6) 9 / 10 We have heard learned counsel for the respective party and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the petition. It is not in dispute that the Rent Control Tribunal, while dismissing the appeal on 27.06.2024, held that the original application under Section 23 of the 1961 Act was not maintainable due to the enforcement of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011. The correctness of the dismissal of the appeal in the face of this finding is now the subject of a review petition, which is admittedly pending. 7) This Court is of the considered view that when the Tribunal has already fixed the matter for hearing of the review petition and when the very foundation of the execution proceedings is under challenge in review, it would not be appropriate for this Court, at this stage, to interfere on merits. The petition, therefore, appears to be premature. 8) However, in the interest of justice, it is considered appropriate to dispose of the present petition with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the review petition and raise all contentions available to him in law. It is clarified that all issues, including maintainability of the eviction application, validity of the eviction order, and the legality of execution proceedings, shall remain open to be raised and decided in the pending review proceedings. 9) Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with the direction that the Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur shall make all efforts to decide the pending review application in MJC No. 14/2024 expeditiously, preferably in accordance with law. 10 / 10 10) Liberty is reserved with the petitioner to challenge the final order passed in review proceedings, if occasion so arises. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rajni Dubey) Judge Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shayna