Dismissed

Shri Vipin Sanghvi v. Gaurishankar Rice Mill through Proprietor 1 Vinod Agrawal

Chhattisgarh HC3 Jul 2023WP227/517/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition against a Rent Control Tribunal order remitting an eviction case for framing of issues. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Tribunal's decision that the matter involved factual aspects requiring issue-framing rather than a pure question of law.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.

Shri Vipin Sanghvi Vs Gaurishankar Rice… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

Page 1 of 3

¶2

{W.P.(Art. 227)No.517/2023}

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

Writ Petition (Art. 227) No.517 of 2023

¶6

Shri Vipin Sanghvi, S/o Shri (Now Late) Jamna Lal Sanghvi, aged about 66 years, through Vipin Kirana Stores, Near Purana Mandi, Raipur Road, Tahsil Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.)

(Non-applicant No.1)

---- Petitioner

Versus

Gaurishankar Rice Mill, through Proprietor

¶11

Vinod Agrawal, S/o Shri Kishan Agrawal, aged about 67 years, R/o 118, Sadar Bazaar Road, Amapara Ward, Ward No.12, Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶12

(Applicant No.1)

¶13

Pramod Agrawal, S/o Shri Kishan Agrawal, aged about 65 years, R/o 19, Amapara Ward, Dhamtari, Tahsil & Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) (Applicant No.2)

¶14

Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, S/o Shri Kishan Agrawal, aged about 60 years, R/o 19, Ramjanaki Temple, Amapar, Dhamtari, Tahsil & Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶15

(Applicant No.3)

¶16

Manorama Devi Agrawal, S/o Shri Kishan Agrawal, aged about 87 years, R/o Ramjanaki Temple, Amapar, Dhamtari, Tahsil & Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶17

(Applicant No.4)

¶18

Sandhya Jhunjhunwala, W/o Shri Anil Kumar Jhunjhunwala, D/o Kishan Agrawal, aged about 55 years, R/o Avani Oxford 136, Jaikhor Road, Municipality Bangoor Avenue, Kolkata (W.B.)

¶19

(Applicant No.5)

¶20

Rent Controlling Authority, Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶21

C.G. Rent Controlling Tribunal, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)

¶22

---- Respondents

¶23

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Petitioner: Mr. U.N.S. Deo and Mr. Satish Gupta, Advocates.

¶24

Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and H on’ble Shri Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ.

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

{W.P.(Art. 227)No.517/2023}

¶27

Order On Board (03/07/2023)

¶28

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

¶29

This writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 10-52023 passed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, in Appeal No.12A/2021, by which the appeal of respondents No.1 to 5 herein has been allowed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal setting aside the order dated 26-8-2020 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Dhamtari in Case No.04/A-90(1) Year 201920, and the case has been remitted to the Rent Controlling Authority to decide the application filed by respondents No.1 to 5 herein in accordance with law after framing issues.

¶30

Mr. U.N.S. Deo, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, would submit that the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in setting aside the order of the Rent Controlling Authority, as the Rent Controlling Authority has rightly allowed the application preferred under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, therefore, the writ petition be admitted and the impugned order be stayed.

¶31

We have heard learned counsel for the writ petitioner and perused the order impugned as also the material available on record.

¶32

In an application for eviction filed by the respondent landlord, application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC was filed by the petitioner herein stating that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, document of title has not been filed, suit map has also not been preferred and land is owned by Municipal

¶33

Page 3 of 3

¶34

{W.P.(Art. 227)No.517/2023}

¶35

Council, Pentin Ganj and therefore the application be rejected summarily invoking Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC which the Rent Controlling Authority allowed and rejected the application for eviction. In appeal preferred, the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal was of the opinion that the question raised by the petitioner herein can be decided after framing the issues and remanded it. In our considered opinion, the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal has rightly held that the question raised in application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC is not a pure question of law and it can be decided after framing issues as such, the Tribunal has rightly set aside the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority and remanded the matter. We do not find any merit in this writ petition, it deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed, in limine. No order

¶36

as to cost(s).

¶37

Sd/Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge

¶38

Soma

Shri Vipin Sanghvi v. Gaurishankar Rice Mill through Proprietor 1 Vinod Agrawal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Vipin Sanghvi v. Gaurishankar Rice Mill through Proprietor 1 Vinod Agrawal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Ram @ Matwar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Poonam Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amit Kumar Ram And Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chandrapal Chakradhari Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chitranjan Alias Chittu Rai Vs State Of Chattisgarh

Mahendra Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh