Order Reserved On 27.06.2025 Order Delivered On 06.08.2025 1 - Tavneet Sahni S/o Inderjeet v. 1
Case Details
1 NAFR VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 379 of 2023 Order Reserved On 27.06.2025 Order Delivered On 06.08.2025 1 - Tavneet Sahni S/o Inderjeet Sahni, Aged About 37 Years Proprietor M/s Avenue, R/o S.F. 7, Magneto Mall, Labhandi, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder Inderjeet Sahni, Aged About 66 Years, R/o Gagan Service Centre, Ring Road, No. 02, Indrint Of Ayappa Mandir Tatibandh, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Smt. Sangeeta Dhandh W/o Shri Sandeep Dhandh, R/o C-19, Sector-2, Avanti Vihar, Telibandha, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Sandeep Dhandh, Aged About 57 Years, R/o C-19, Sector-2, Avanti Vihar, Telibandha, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ----Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner For Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Parth Shrivastava, Advocate Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate : : Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey and Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad CAV Order 2 Per, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 13.04.2023 passed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal in appeal no. 67-A/2022 whereby learned Tribunal rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner under section 13 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (herein after referred as the Act, 2011) on the ground that, according to the Order 40 Rule 7 of CPC the order of rejection of the application for review shall not be appealable. The petitioner has not preferred any review application and the learned Rent Control Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the appeal. 2. The petitioner was a tenant in a property regarding which the respondent filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 seeking vacant possession and arrears of rent. Without proper service of notice to the petitioner, the Rent Controlling Authority passed an ex-parte eviction order dated 21.07.2022 in Case No. 43-90(6)/2021-22. The petitioner became aware of this order only on 28.09.2022
Legal Reasoning
reiterated by this Court in S. Thangappan vs. P. Padmavathy (1999) 7 SCC 474 and Bhogadi Kannababu and Ors. vs. Vuggina Pydamma and 12 others (2006) 5 SCC 532. In any view of the matter, the appellants, being the son of Bhola Nath, who at all relevant time, was the landlord vis-à-vis the original defendant and the respondents in terms of Section 3(j) of the Act, their status as landlords for the purpose of eviction under the Act, could not have been questioned so as to non suit them for want of locus. 35. To reiterate, the High Court by the decisions impugned, had dismissed the suit and the application for release of the suit premises under Section 21 of the Act, principally on the ground of want of standing of the appellants. In the face of the determination made hereinabove, the said conclusion is unsustainable on facts and in law and are thus liable to be set aside, which we hereby do. Having regard to the conclusions recorded on the aspect of default in payment of rent and sub-letting, both statutorily recognized grounds for eviction of a tenant under Section 20 of the Act, it is considered inessential to dilate on the ground of bona fide requirement and comparative hardship. In the wake up of the above, the impugned judgments and orders of the High Court are set-aside and the suit of the appellants is decreed in full. The respondents would vacate the suit premises at the earliest and in no case later than three months from today. The appeals are allowed. No costs.” 12. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shivshankar Gurgar vs Dilip reported in 2014 (2) SCC 465 has held that Section 13 of the Rent Act applies only during the pendency of eviction suits or appeals not during execution 13 proceedings and that allowing tenants to deposit rent at the execution stage to retain possession would undermine Section 12(1)(a). It clarified that eviction decrees, even if based on compromise, must still meet statutory grounds. The relevant paras are held as under:- “24. A reading of Section 13, in our view clearly indicates that the payment or the deposit of rent into the court by the judgment debtor (tenant) is contemplated only during the pendency of the suit for eviction or an appeal (by the tenant) against a decree or order of eviction. Section 13 has no application to the execution proceedings of a decree for eviction. 25. The language of Section 13(1) is very clear and explicit in this regard. We fail to understand as to how the Court could read into Section 13, a possibility of enabling the judgment debtor (tenant) to protect his possession by making the payment during the execution proceedings in spite of the fact that he had already been adjudged to be in default of payment of the rent to the landlord. Such an interpretation of Section 13 would be wholly destructive of Section 12(1)(a). Therefore, not only the language of Section 13(1), but also an irreconcilable inconsistency that would arise between Section 12(1)(a) and Section 13(1) if the interpretation placed by the executing court is accepted - in our view is sufficient to hold that the executing court’s interpretation of Section 13(1) is unsustainable. 26. Coming to the decision of this Court in Smt. 14 Nai Bahu v. Lala Ramnarayan and others (1978) 1 SCC 58, all that this Court held is that a landlord whose right to seek the eviction of his tenant is restricted by a statute (to the grounds specified in the statute) cannot successfully evict the tenant only on the basis of a compromise decree passed in a suit for eviction of the tenant. Apart from the consent of the tenant, one of the statutorily stipulated grounds rendering the tenant liable for eviction must necessarily exist for the validity of such a decree. In other words, this court held that a tenant who suffered a consent decree can still raise a question that none of the statutory conditions existed which render him liable for eviction when the consent decree came to be passed. 27. In the case on hand the tenant was clearly in arrears of the rent which fact is acknowledged by the compromise memo signed by the tenant which was incorporated in the decree. Looked at any angle, we are not able to agree with the judgment under appeal, nor able to sustain the executing court’s order dismissing the landlord’s execution petition. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The execution petition filed by the appellant is also allowed. The executing court will now take necessary steps for evicting the respondent from the disputed premises and handing over the possession of the same to the appellant.” 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, 15 arguments advanced by the parties, and the laws laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court finds no merit in the petitioner’s challenge to the impugned orders passed by the Rent Controlling Authority and the Rent Control Tribunal. Although the petitioner alleges improper service and denial of natural justice, the record reveals that the recall application was delayed and procedurally deficient. The Authority’s treatment of the application as akin to a review, and the Tribunal’s dismissal of the appeal under Section 13 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 by invoking Order 40 Rule 7 CPC, is consistent with settled legal principles that bar appeals from orders rejecting review or analogous applications. Additionally, the petitioner failed to comply with the Court’s direction to deposit arrears and did not prosecute the matter carefully, which undermines her claim to equitable relief. The impugned orders conform to law and were passed within the jurisdiction of the concerned authorities. Therefore, this Court finds no procedural illegality or perversity warranting interference under Article 227, and the petition is accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit. 14. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha
Arguments
when her father, Shri Inderjeet Singh, accidentally came across it while checking the cause list in another matter. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 10(1)(f) of the Act read with Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for recall of the ex-parte order. However, the Rent Controlling Authority, instead of registering the application as a separate proceeding, improperly tagged it with 3 the execution case and rejected it vide non-speaking order dated 21.11.2022 by erroneously treating it as a review application. Against this, the petitioner filed Appeal No. 67-A/2022 under Section 13 of the Act, which was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal on 13.04.2023 on the erroneous ground that an appeal does not lie against an order rejecting a review, despite the fact that the petitioner had never filed a review. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent entered into a Lease Agreement on 05.01.2017 for a commercial space measuring 275 sq. ft. at Shop No. GF 22-B, Ground Floor, Magneto the Mall, GE Road, NH-6, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, at a monthly rent of Rs. 33,350/- for 11 months, which was orally extended from time to time. Due to the COVID-19 lockdown, the petitioner could not pay rent on time, leading the respondent to file an application under Section 12(2) Schedule II Serial No. 11 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 for arrears and possession on 08.03.2022. The respondent deliberately mentioned an incorrect address in the application despite knowing the petitioner's shop location, resulting in notices being improperly served and received by an unrelated employee. Despite improper service, the Rent Controlling Authority proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner on 03.06.2022 and passed an order on 21.07.2022, which was further modified on 04.08.2022 without notice to the petitioner. The petitioner learned of the proceedings only on 28.09.2022 through his father, who then obtained copies and filed 4 an application under Section 10(1)(f) of the Act read with Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, which was rejected summarily on 21.11.2022 without proper adjudication. The petitioner’s appeal under Section 13 of the Act was also rejected on the erroneous ground that review rejections are non-appealable under Order 40 Rule 7 CPC. Both the Rent Controlling Authority and the Tribunal acted in a mechanical, perverse, and illegal manner by denying proper notice and hearing, and their orders are liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. Hence this petition. 4. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 13.04.2023 passed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal in appeal no. 67-A/2022 (ANNEXURE P/1) and consequently also set aside the order dated 21.11.2022 (ANNEXURE P/3) and ex-parte order dated 21.07.2022 passed by Rent Controlling Authority in case no. 43-90(6) year 2021-22 (ANNEXURE P/2) in the interest of justice. 10.2) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 5. The case as projected by the petitioner is that the petitioner is a lawful tenant of Shop No. GF 22-B, Magneto the Mall, Raipur, under a lease agreement dated 05.01.2017, is aggrieved by the illegal and arbitrary orders passed by the Rent Controlling Authority and the Rent Control Tribunal. Due to financial hardship 5 caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner was unable to pay rent on time, following which the respondent filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 for eviction and arrears. However, despite knowing the correct address of the petitioner, the respondent deliberately misrepresented it, and notices were improperly served to third parties. Relying on such defective service, the Rent Controlling Authority proceeded ex-parte and passed an eviction order dated 21.07.2022. The petitioner came to know about this only through her father on 28.09.2022 and immediately filed an application under Section 10(1)(f) of the Act read with Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for recall. Instead of adjudicating the application independently, the Authority wrongly tagged it with the execution case and dismissed it via a non-speaking and erroneous order dated 21.11.2022, mischaracterizing it as a review. The appeal preferred under Section 13 of the Act was also dismissed by the Tribunal on 13.04.2023 in a mechanical manner citing Order 40 Rule 7 CPC, despite the fact that no review was filed. The petitioner contends that both the orders suffer from procedural irregularities, denial of natural justice, and deserve to be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders passed by the learned Rent Controlling Authority and the Rent Control Tribunal are patently illegal, perverse, and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The ex-parte eviction order dated 21.07.2022 was passed without proper service of 6 notice upon the petitioner, as the respondent deliberately furnished an incorrect address despite being fully aware of the correct one as per the lease agreement. The service reports clearly show that notices were served to unrelated third parties. The petitioner, upon learning of the ex-parte proceedings, promptly filed an application under Section 10(1)(f) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 read with Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. However, instead of adjudicating the application in accordance with the prescribed procedure by issuing notice, taking evidence, and passing a reasoned order, the Rent Controlling Authority casually dismissed the application through a non-speaking order, wrongly treating it as a review. The Tribunal further erred in dismissing the appeal under Section 13 of the Act on the untenable ground that an appeal against a review order is not maintainable, despite no review ever being filed. Both authorities have thus acted in an arbitrary and mechanical manner, causing grave injustice to the petitioner, and the impugned orders are therefore liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner’s conduct throughout the proceedings has been willfully negligent and evasive. The respondent had filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act’) seeking eviction and arrears of rent due to the petitioner’s habitual default in 7 payment. After due cognizance, multiple notices were issued and duly served, yet the petitioner deliberately failed to appear, leading to ex-parte proceedings and the passing of a reasoned order dated 21.07.2022. The subsequent application filed by the petitioner under Section 10(1)(f) of the Act read with Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC was nothing but an afterthought, filed during execution proceedings solely to delay and frustrate the lawful process. The Authority rightly rejected it, finding no sufficient cause for recall. Furthermore, the Tribunal, after appreciating the facts and affording due opportunity, dismissed the appeal as not maintainable under Order 47 Rule 7 of CPC, since the application was, in essence, a review. The petitioner has also defied the directions of this Hon’ble Court by not depositing the arrears of ₹6,87,500 as ordered, and therefore, is not entitled to any equitable relief. The entire petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed with costs. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for both parties, considered their rival submissions, perused the evidence led by the parties and the record with utmost circumspection. 9. Upon careful perusal of the record, it is apparent that the Rent Controlling Authority proceeded ex-parte on the ground of defective or improper service of notice caused by the respondent’s incorrect address submission. Although there was some irregularity in service, the petitioner admittedly became aware of the ex-parte order only on 28.09.2022 but delayed in 8 filing the recall application. The application filed under Section 10(1)(f) of the Act read with Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC for recall of the ex-parte order is intended to be treated as an independent proceeding and not as a review petition. However, where the application is misconstrued or functions effectively as a review petition, the law, as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, restricts appeals against orders rejecting review petitions under Order 40 Rule 7 of CPC. The Tribunal, by relying on this principle, dismissed the appeal on the ground of maintainability. This approach is consistent with the legal position that review petitions are summary remedies, and appeals against their rejection are generally barred to prevent multiplicity of litigation. 10. Moreover, the petitioner has not complied with the Court’s direction to deposit the arrears, which severely undermines the petitioner’s claim for equitable relief. The Tribunal and the Rent Controlling Authority’s orders are therefore found to be neither arbitrary nor illegal but are grounded in established procedural law and facts. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Om Prakash And Anr vs Mishri Lal (Dead) Rep. By His Lr. Savitri Devi reported in 2017 (5) SCC 451 has upheld the eviction on the grounds of sub-letting and rent default, finding that the tenant had unlawfully inducted his nephew into the premises and had also constructed and resided in his own house elsewhere, thereby disqualifying himself from protection under Section 20(4) of the 9 Rent Act. It reiterated that any co-owner can validly maintain an eviction suit and that the tenant is estopped under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act from disputing the landlord’s title. The relevant paragraphs are held as under:- “31. Viz-a-vis the aspect of sub-letting, we are inclined to concur with the finding of the Trial Court that Motichand, who was the nephew of the original defendant, had been inducted in the suit premises as a sub- tenant. Further as it is a matter of record that the original defendant had constructed his own house elsewhere where he has been residing with his wife, the accommodation of his nephew Motichand in the suit premises did amount to sub-letting and the same having been done without the knowledge and approval of the landlords, this too provided a ground for his eviction therefrom. Additionally, even if the deposit of arrears of rent in full by the original defendant at the time of institution of the suit is construed to be valid, in the face of his own house elsewhere, he is not entitled to the protection from eviction under the proviso to sub-section 4 of Section 20. To be elaborate, under sub-section 4 of Section 20, as referred to hereinabove, if a tenant, at the first hearing of the suit, unconditionally pays or tenders to the landlord the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation of the building due from him together with interest thereon @ 9% per annum and the landlords' costs of the suit in respect thereof, after deducting therefrom any amount already deposited by the tenant under sub- section1 of Section 30, the court may, in lieu of 10 passing a decree for eviction on that ground, pass an order relieving the tenant against his liability for eviction on the ground of default. The proviso thereto predicates that this benefit would not be available to a tenant who or any member of his family has built or has otherwise acquired in a vacant state, or has got vacated after acquisition, any residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area. Apart from the fact that no evidence is forthcoming to attest that the requirements of sub-section 4 of Section 20 had been fully complied with, the construction of his own house elsewhere, as is evident from the record, did dis- entitle the original defendant and now the respondents to avail the benefit of such protection, as contemplated by the Act. 32. It is no longer res integra and is settled by this Court in Sri Ram Pasricha vs. Jagannath and Ors., (1976) 4 SCC 184, Dhannalal vs. Kalawatibai and Ors. (2002) 6 SCC 16 and India Umberalla Manufacturing Co. and Ors. vs. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (dead) by Lrs. Savitri Agarwalla (Smt.) and Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 178 that a suit for eviction of a tenant can be maintained by one of the co-owners and it would be no defence to the tenant to question the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the other co-owners were not joined as parties to the suit. The judicially propounded proposition is that when the property forming the subject matter of eviction proceedings is owned by several co-owners, every co-owner owns every 11 part and every bit of the joint property along with others and thus it cannot be said that he is only a part owner or a fractional owner of the property and that he can alone maintain a suit for eviction of the tenant without joining the other co-owners if such other co-owners do not object. In the contextual facts, not only the compromise decree, as aforementioned, has declared the appellants to be the joint owners of the suit premises, their status as such has not been questioned at any stage by anyone interested in the title thereto. 33. Further, the original defendant having accepted Smt. Chameli Devi as his landlady and thereafter continued to pay rent to her son Bhola Nath, the father of the appellants, in terms of the definition of “landlord” in Section 3(j) of the Act, he during his life time and after his demise, the respondents are estopped under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to dispute the status of the appellants as their landlord in a suit for his eviction from the tenanted premises. 34. That a tenant during the continuance of the tenancy is debarred on the doctrine of estoppel from denying the title of his landlord through whom he claims tenancy, as is enshrined in Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is so well-settled a legal postulation that no decision need be cited to further consolidate the same. This enunciation, amongst others is