Smt. Ramindar Kaur Dutta Vs Ashish Bhutada

¶1

1 / 4

¶2

2024:CGHC:45597-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WP227 No. 1052 of 2024

¶6

Smt. Ramindar Kaur Dutta W/o Paramveer Singh Dutta, Aged About 62 Years Proprietor M/s. Dutta Dry-Cleaners, Main Road, Samata Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

Ashish Bhutada S/o Badrinath Ji Bhutada, Aged About 40 Years

¶10

Smt. Ramkuwar Bhutada, W/o Badrinath Bhutada, Aged About 65 Years Both R/o Fool Chowk, Jorapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner : Shri Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate

¶13

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J.

¶16

21-11-2024

¶17

Challenge in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

¶18

India is to the order dated 21/08/2024 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur (henceforth ‘the Tribunal’) in Misc. Appeal No. 13/2024 and the order dated 15/03/2024 passed by the Rent Control Authority (henceforth ‘the Authority’) in Case No. 02-90(6)/2020-21, whereby the application filed by the petitioner herein (hereinafter

¶19

2 / 4

¶20

referred to as ‘the non-applicant’) under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’) has been rejected and closed the right of cross-examination of the witnesses.

¶21

The facts of the case, in short, as projected in the writ petition, are that the respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as ‘the applicant’) has filed an application for eviction of the non-applicant from the disputed shop before the Authority in a case bearing No. 02-90(6)/2020-21. The said case was fixed on 15/03/2024 for evidence of the non-applicant. On the said date the non-applicant moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, but the Authority vide its order dated 15/03/2024 without deciding the application closed the opportunity of the non-applicant to cross-examine the witnesses of the applicant on the ground that earlier last opportunity was granted to the non-applicant on 04/03/2024, despite the said fact the non-applicant moved the application under Order 6 Rule 17 to delay the proceedings. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Authority, the non-applicant filed Misc. Appeal before the Tribunal bearing No.13/2024. The said Tribunal dismissed the Misc. Appeal of the non-applicant. Thus, this petition.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (non-applicant) would submit that the non-applicant moved the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC because during preparation of cross-examination, her counsel came to know that by mistake some important facts have not been mentioned in the written statement for which the application was moved, which was a bona fide . However, without considering the said

¶23

3 / 4

¶24

fact the right to cross-examine the witnesses has been closed by the Authority in an illegal and arbitrary manner holding that earlier last opportunity was provided to cross-examine the witnesses on 04/03/2024 and the reason assigned by the Authority that to delay the proceeding the application under Order 6 Rule 17 has been moved. Thereafter the nonapplicant approached the Tribunal by filing Misc. Appeal 13/2024 which has also been dismissed by order dated 21/08/2024 without appreciating bona fide on the part of the non-applicant.

¶25

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the documents.

¶26

The reason to move the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC by the non-applicant only on the reason that during preparation of crossexamination her counsel came to know that by mistake some important facts have not been mentioned in the written statement and hence on his advice she moved the application and made a prayer for amendment. Albeit there was no intention to delay the proceedings but on the advice of counsel the application was moved by the non-applicant and, as such, closure of opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the applicant was not justified.

¶27

Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the object of the Rent Control Act, 2011 which has been promulgated for early disposal of disputes between landlords and tenants; and to avoid delay tactics, in the interest of justice, it will be appropriate to give a last opportunity to the non-applicant to cross-

¶28

4 / 4

¶29

examine the witnesses of the applicant, subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/-.

¶30

In view of foregoing, the writ petition is allowed . The order dated 21/08/2024 passed by the Tribunal and the order dated 15/03/2024 passed by the Authority are set aside. The petitioner/non-applicant is allowed to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondent/applicant, subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- payable by her to the respondent/applicant.

¶31

Both the parties shall appear before the Rent Control Authority on

¶32

11th December, 2024 .

¶33

Sd/- Sd/-

¶34

(Rajani Dubey) (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Judge

¶35

Shoaib

¶36

Digitally signed by SHOAIB SHOAIB ANWAR ANWAR Date: 2024.11.26 11:32:25 +0530

Smt. Ramindar Kaur Dutta v. Ashish Bhutada

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ramindar Kaur Dutta v. Ashish Bhutada

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalyan Das Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Laxmi Vaishnav Vs Smt. Amrika Bai Ajagalay

Ghanshyam Verma @ Raja Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Raj Narayan Sahu @ Raju Vs Deepak Kumar Jha

M/S A.K.S. Infratech Vs Shri Shashikant Singh Bhuwal

Chhotu Kaser Vs State of Chhattisgarh