DATE: 11.03.2026
COURT: High Court of Chhattisgarh
BENCH: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and
Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
FACTS:
The petitioner, Halima Begum, purchased a
shop measuring 14 x 20 ft (280 sq.ft.) situated at Amapara (presently Ward
Tatyapara), Raipur, from Radhabai by a registered sale deed dated 14.02.2000.
The shop was originally let out by Radhabai in 1977-78 to late Nazir Ahmad
(father-in-law of the petitioner and father of respondents No.1 to 6) at a
monthly rent of Rs.110/-. After Nazir Ahmad’s death, his legal heirs (the
respondents) continued in possession and carried on the grocery business under
the name “Ahmed Kirana Stores”. The petitioner claimed that upon purchase of
the property, the respondents became her tenants by operation of law. She
issued a legal notice dated 04.02.2015 demanding vacant possession and arrears
of rent amounting to Rs.3,960/- for the preceding three years. Since the
respondents neither paid the arrears nor vacated the premises, the petitioner
filed an application under Section 12(2) read with Schedule II of the
Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 before the Rent Control Authority seeking
eviction and recovery of arrears.
The respondents resisted the petition
contending that the property was joint family property purchased from the
income of the family business “Ahmed Kirana Stores” in the name of the
petitioner (their daughter-in-law/sister-in-law). They denied the existence of
any landlord-tenant relationship with the petitioner and asserted that they
were in possession as co-owners. The Rent Control Authority, by order dated
24.05.2022, dismissed the eviction application holding that the petitioner
failed to prove the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The
petitioner’s appeal (No.35A/2022) and the respondents’ appeal (No.37A/2022)
were both dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal vide order dated 24.03.2023.
Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 227
of the Constitution.
ISSUES:
The main issues before the Court were: (i)
whether a landlord-tenant relationship existed between the petitioner and the
respondents entitling her to seek eviction and recovery of arrears under
Section 12(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011; (ii) whether the
concurrent findings of the Rent Control Authority and the Tribunal that the
petitioner failed to establish such relationship were perverse or contrary to law,
particularly in view of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and
the admissions made by the respondents; and (iii) whether the eviction
proceedings could be maintained when a civil suit regarding title to the same
property was pending and its first appeal was still undecided before the High
Court.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the
writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Court refused to
interfere with the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Authority and the
Rent Control Tribunal that the petitioner had failed to prove the existence of
a landlord-tenant relationship with the respondents. The impugned orders dated
24.05.2022 and 24.03.2023 were upheld, and the eviction application was not
allowed. The parties were granted liberty to pursue their remedies in the
pending First Appeal arising out of the civil suit concerning title.
The High Court held that proceedings under
Section 12(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 are summary in nature
and can be maintained only when the foundational requirement of a
landlord-tenant relationship, as defined under Sections 2(5) and 2(14) of the
Act, is clearly established. Although the petitioner proved her ownership over
the shop through the registered sale deed dated 14.02.2000, both the Rent
Control Authority and the Tribunal rightly found that mere ownership was
insufficient to create a jural relationship of landlord and tenant, especially
when the parties were closely related (the petitioner being the daughter-in-law
of the original tenant Nazir Ahmad). There was no evidence of attornment,
payment of rent to the petitioner, rent agreement, or rent receipts after the
2000 sale deed. Significantly, for nearly 15 years after the purchase, the
petitioner did not demand rent or issue any notice treating the respondents as
her tenants. The first demand was made only in 2015 for arrears of the
preceding three years. The authorities below correctly held that in the absence
of such evidence, and considering the family nature of the dispute, the
petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving the landlord-tenant
relationship. Reliance placed by the petitioner on Section 109 of the Transfer
of Property Act was held inapplicable in the absence of an established tenancy.
The Court further observed that when a
substantial dispute regarding title and ownership is pending adjudication
before the civil court (First Appeal No.18 of 2024 is still pending), it would
be inappropriate to grant eviction in summary rent control proceedings. The
concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two statutory authorities below
were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any
perversity or jurisdictional error. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Deepak
Tandon v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, the High Court held that such
concurrent findings of fact are binding on the writ court and cannot be
re-appreciated or interfered with in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution. Any observation made in the writ petition
would not prejudice the rights of the parties in the pending civil appeal. In
view of these reasons, the Court declined to interfere and dismissed the writ
petition.
ANALYSIS:
The Chhattisgarh High Court’s judgment
underscores the strict foundational requirement under the Chhattisgarh Rent
Control Act, 2011 that eviction proceedings under Section 12(2) can be
entertained only when the existence of a clear landlord-tenant relationship is
established. Although the petitioner successfully proved her ownership of the
shop through a registered sale deed dated 14.02.2000, the Court held that
ownership alone does not automatically create a legal relationship of landlord
and tenant, especially in a family dispute where the petitioner is the
daughter-in-law of the original tenant. The absence of attornment, rent
receipts, rent agreement, or any demand for rent for nearly 15 years after the
purchase proved fatal to the petitioner’s case. The authorities below rightly
concluded that the respondents continued in possession as legal heirs of the
original tenant without acknowledging the petitioner as their landlord. The
reliance on Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act was rejected because
that provision applies only when a valid tenancy already exists and is
transferred, which was not established on facts.
The judgment also highlights the
well-settled principle that summary proceedings under rent control legislation
cannot be used to adjudicate complex title disputes. Since a civil suit
regarding ownership and title of the same property was pending and its First
Appeal (FA No.18 of 2024) was still undecided before the High Court, the rent
control authorities and the writ court rightly declined to grant eviction. The
concurrent findings of fact by the Rent Control Authority and the Tribunal,
being based on proper appreciation of evidence, were held binding under Article
227 jurisdiction. Citing Deepak Tandon v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta,
the Court refused to re-appreciate evidence or interfere with the findings. The
decision strikes a balance between protecting legitimate landlord rights and
preventing abuse of summary eviction proceedings in cases involving genuine
family title disputes.
info@adhwaitha.com