Manohar Wadhwani v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Housing And Environment

Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Addl. A.G. & Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Govt. Advocate Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Ankit Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board

21.02.2022

The instant writ petition has been filed claiming for the following reliefs: 2 i) Hold that action on the part of the respondent authorities especially the manner in which respondent no.3 acted and adjudicate the matter even without holding lawful appointment order by the State Government aptly required under Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 & same is libale to the declare as void in the eyes of law being without the “Sanction of Law.” ii) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to refrain himself/themselves to proceed with any eviction proceeding.

The petitioners herein are the tenant of respondent no.4 and are in occupation of the shop owned by respondent no.4 located at Juna, Bilaspur. The respondent no.4 had initiated an eviction proceeding against the petitioners before the Rent Controlling Authority, district Bilaspur who has been impleaded in this writ petition by name as respondent no.3. The Rent Controlling Authority finally vide its order dated 16.02.2021 allowed the application of respondent no.4 and directed the petitioners to vacate the premises within 45 days and handover the property to respondent no.4.

The order of Rent Controlling Authority has been subjected to challenge by the petitioners themselves before the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal where the matter has been registered as Appeal No. 9A/2021. The appeal has been admitted for hearing and the interim application filed on behalf of the petitioners has also been taken cognizance. Notices have been issued to the respondents and an interim order staying the effect and operation of the order of the Rent Controlling Authority has been passed by the CG Rent Control Tribunal on 15.03.2021. Thereafter, the proceeding before the Tribunal is pending. Meanwhile, the present writ petition claiming for the aforementioned relief has been filed. 3

The ground of challenge in the present writ petition is that the respondent no.3 who had passed the order dated 16.02.2021 in the proceeding under the Rent Control Act was in fact not competent and duly appointed as is otherwise required under Section 7 of the Rent Control Act, 2011. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the action on the part of the respondent no.3 in initiating the proceeding under the Rent Control Act and the order passed therein is bad and that an appropriate direction is required to be passed.

This Court, at the outset, is of the opinion that the writ petition at this juncture would not be sustainable for the reason that the petitioners themselves have already approached the Appellate Tribunal assailing the order of respondent no.3 i.e. the Rent Controlling Authority thereby they themselves have availed the remedy of appeal provided under the statute. The appeal has been admitted and an interim order in favour of the petitioners restraining the compliance of the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority has already been passed by the Appellate Tribunal. That the appeal is still pending before the Tribunal and in the process of being considered for final hearing.

Given the fact that the matter is already seized by a statutory authority under the Act, the writ petition simultaneously testing the proceeding drawn under the Rent Controlling Authority would not be permissible. It would amount to permitting the petitioners to have two parallel proceedings against the same proceeding that was initiated by the Rent Controlling Authority, one before the Statutory Authority by way of an appeal and second before the High Court under the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India. 4

This Court therefore at this juncture is not inclined to entertain the writ petition in its given form. However, the right of petitioners stands reserved if they so want, they would be permitted to raise the grounds that they have raised in the present writ petition as additional grounds in the appeal by moving an appropriate application in that regard. Upon such application being filed, the Tribunal is expected to grant the respondents therein a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend their case and after hearing all the parties would finally decide the appeal on its own merits at the earliest.

Given the said order passed by this Court, the interim protection earlier granted by this Court also would stand vacated.

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Khatai Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge