Dismissed¶24

Bharat Lal Gupta v. Ganesh Vaishya

Chhattisgarh HC21 Apr 2025WP227/354/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Eviction of ~50-year tenant under Section 12, Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act 2011; Rent Control Authority Manendragarh order 01.01.2024 (Case No. A-90/(3) year 2019-20) affirmed by Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur (Appeal No. 04-A/2024, order 17.03.2025); writ petition against concurrent findings on ownership and landlord-tenant relationship dismissed as not perverse; arrears of rent Rs. 81,600/- upheld; keys handed over; time till 31.07.2025 to remove goods and vacate; case type WP227; parties Bharat Lal Gupta v. Ganesh, Gopal, Ramji, Shyamji, Sharad Vaishya and Smt. Prabha Gupta; Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur; NAFR-marked short order.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to vacate the suit premises after removing the goods kept therein on 31.07.2025 with the cooperation of the respondents; pending applications disposed of.

Bharat Lal Gupta Vs Ganesh Vaishya — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner permitted to vacate the suit premises after removing the goods kept therein on 31.07.2025 with the cooperation of the respondents; pending applications disposed of.

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and affirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal — that the original respondent is the owner of the suit premises and that a relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties — call for interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

The issue regarding ownership of the suit premises stands decided in favour of the respondents and, upon assessment of the evidence, does not require any interference.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The issue regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondents has been decided in favour of the respondents after assessment of the evidence; hence the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller needs no interference.

¶23

Key takeaways

The findings of the learned Rent Controller on the arrears of rent, affirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal, are based on proper appreciation of evidence and material available on record; the respondents are entitled to the arrears of Rs. 81,600/- from the petitioner.ratio¶24
There is no scope for interference in the impugned order and the writ petition is not worth admission; accordingly the writ petition is dismissed, permitting the petitioner to vacate the suit premises after removing the goods kept therein on 31.07.2025.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (DB: Rajani Dubey & Sachin Singh Rajput, JJ.; order per Rajput J.), 22.04.2025, WP227 No. 354 of 2025: Dismisses the tenant's writ petition challenging the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur's order dated 17.03.2025 in Appeal No. 04-A/2024, which affirmed the Rent Control Authority, Manendragarh's order dated 01.01.2024 in Case No. A-90/(3) year 2019-20 passed under Section 12 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 directing eviction and payment of arrears of Rs. 81,600/-. Concurrent findings on ownership of the suit premises by the respondents and on the landlord–tenant relationship, and on the arrears, are held to be based on proper appreciation of evidence requiring no interference; keys already handed over and petitioner ready to pay arrears; petitioner allowed to vacate after removing goods on 31.07.2025; pending applications disposed.

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WP227 No. 354 of 2025

¶5

1 - Bharat Lal Gupta S/o Baijnath Gupta Aged About 55 Years R/o Ward No. 21, Rapakherwa Road, Near The House Of Vaidya Babu, Manendragarh, DistrictManendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s)

¶6

versus

¶7

1 - Ganesh Vaishya S/o Late Murlidhar Vaishya R/o Ward No. 20, Near H.P. Petrol Pump, Nadi Para, Ambikapur Road, Manendragarh, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.)

¶8

2 - Gopal Vaishya S/o Late Murlidhar Vaishya R/o Ward No. 20, Near H.P. Petrol Pump, Nadi Para, Ambikapur Road, Manendragarh, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.)

¶9

3 - Ramji Vaishya S/o Late Murlidhar Vaishya R/o Ward No. 20, Near H.P. Petrol Pump, Nadi Para, Ambikapur Road, Manendragarh, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.)

¶10

4 - Shyamji Vaishya S/o Late Murlidhar Vaishya R/o Ward No. 20, Near H.P. Petrol Pump, Nadi Para, Ambikapur Road, Manendragarh, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.)

¶11

5 - Sharad Vaishya S/o Late Murlidhar Vaishya R/o Ward No. 20, Near H.P. Petrol Pump, Nadi Para, Ambikapur Road, Manendragarh, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.)

¶12

6 - Smt. Prabha Gupta W/o Parasnath Gupta, D/o Late Murlidhar Vaishya R/o VillagePuraina, District- Baikunthpur (Koriya) C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Chauhan, Advocate

¶13

Hon’ble Smt. Rajani Dubey and Hon’ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, JJ

Order on Board

22/04/2025

Per Sachin Singh Rajput, J.

¶18

This petition has been filed against order dated 17.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, CG in Appeal No. 04-A/2024 by which the order dated 01.01.2024 passed by Rent Control Authority, Manendragarh, CG in Case No. A-90/(3) year 2019-20, has been affirmed.

¶19

As per pleadings, the original applicant Murlidhar Vaishya is the owner of building/premises situated in front of Jaiswal Petrol Pump, beside B.S. Mart, Ambikapur road, Manendragarh-Chirmiri, District Manendragarh, CG, in the said building/premises various tenants are running their business. The said suit premises is in part of Khasra No. 216. The petitioner is a tenant for about 50 years and his business establishment runs in the suit premises which is around 15X25=375 sq.ft. An application under Section 12 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (for short “Act of 2011”) was filed for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises and also to pay the arrears of rent. The application was allowed by the learned Rent Controller vide its order dated 01.01.2024 and directed the petitioner to vacate the suit premises and to pay the arrears of rent of Rs. 81,600/-. The order was subjected to challenge by the petitioner before the learned Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, CG which by the impugned order dated 17.03.2025 dismissed the appeal. Assailing the same, this writ petition has been filed.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal are perverse and contrary to the evidence. He submits that both the authorities have not considered the evidence to its proper prospective therefore, this writ petition may be admitted for hearing. However, he fairly submits that in compliance of the order passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal, the key of the suit premises has already been handed over to the respondent but the goods of the petitioner are still lying in the suit premises. He further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to also pay the arrears of rent of Rs. 81,600/-. He submits that the petitioner is in occupation of the suit premises as a tenant for about 50 years and still availing to execute a fresh rent agreement with the respondent and therefore, this writ petition has been filed.

¶21

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶22

¶23

The learned Rent Controller on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed two issues. The first issue framed by the learned Rent Controller is that whether the original respondent is the owner of the suit premises. This issue is decided in favour of the respondent and after assessment of the evidence, it does not require any interference. The another issue is with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent. After assessment of the evidence, this issue has been decided in favour of the respondent. Even otherwise, the tenancy of the petitioner and the suit premises is seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, the finding recorded by learned Rent Controller needs no interference.

¶24

The learned Rent Controller while deciding the another issue with regard to the arrears of rent also held that the respondent are entitled to Rs. 81.600/- from the petitioner. The findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller which is also affirmed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal appears to be based on proper appreciation of evidence and material available on record. Even otherwise, as per petitioner’s counsel the key of the suit premises has already been hand over and he is ready and willing to pay Rs. 81,600/- arrears of rent. Therefore, this Court does not find any scope for interference in the impugned order and the petition is not worth for admission. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall vacate the suit premises after removing the goods kept thereby on 31.07.2025 with the corporation of the respondent.

¶25

Consequently, all the pending applications stand disposed of.

¶26

Sd/Sd/(Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge

¶27

(Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶28

Pawan

Bharat Lal Gupta v. Ganesh Vaishya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Lal Gupta v. Ganesh Vaishya

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

Union of India Vs B. Laxmi

Union of India Vs Durga Biswas

Union of India Vs Devanand

Smt. Jyoti Yadav Vs Hari Yadav

Ramesh Kumar Jain Vs Ashish

Yogesh Kumar Sahu Vs Universal Credit Co-Operative Society