Dismissed¶¶58

Ajay Agrawal v. Satish Agrawal

Chhattisgarh HC2 Dec 2025WP227/915/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction vs appellate power; writ against concurrent findings of Rent Control Authority and Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur (Appeal 25-A/2024, judgment 20.08.2024); proof of landlord-tenant relationship; rent receipts; godown, Dongargarh; perversity and jurisdictional error; precedents referred: Union of India v. Himmat Singh Chahar, Ajaib Singh, Surya Dev Rai, T.G.N. Kumar; petition dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not appellate but supervisory, and it cannot interfere with findings of fact recorded by the lower Court/Tribunal unless there is no evidence to support the finding or the finding is perverse. ¶¶57

Ajay Agrawal Vs Satish Agrawal — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶58

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Article 227 warrants interference with the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Authority and the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal that the petitioners failed to prove their tenancy, i.e., whether any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error exists. +1 more

¶¶57

Court's answer

¶¶57

Ratio / Principle

In light of the concurrent findings of fact of both the Rent Control Authority and the Rent Control Tribunal, the record disclosed no perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error warranting exercise of supervisory or revisional powers under Article 227; hence there was no ground for interference.

¶¶57

Key takeaways

The Court affirmed the Tribunal's independent assessment that the petitioners utterly failed to discharge the burden of proving the landlord-tenant relationship — no reliable rent receipts were produced, the documents were doubtful, and no independent witness was examined to corroborate payment or receipt of rent.ratio¶¶54

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Division Bench; order per Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.), 03.12.2025 — Writ petition under Article 227 against the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller, Rajnandgaon and the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur (judgment dated 20.08.2024 in Appeal No. 25-A/2024) that the petitioners failed to prove tenancy of the disputed godown. Held: Article 227 jurisdiction is supervisory, not appellate; findings of fact can be disturbed only if unsupported by evidence or perverse. No perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error was disclosed — no reliable rent receipts, documents found doubtful, no independent witness examined. Petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

Digitally VISHAKHA signed by BEOHAR VISHAKHA BEOHAR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WP227 No. 915 of 2024

¶6

1 - Ajay Agrawal S/o Late Ghisu Lal Agrawal Aged About 50 Years R/o Agrasen Chowk, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 491445

¶7

2 - Vijay Agrawal S/o Late Ghisu Lal Agrawal Aged About 48 Years R/o Agrasen Chowk, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 491445

¶8

... Petitioners

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Satish Agrawal S/o Late Durga Prasad Agrawal R/o Shri Ram Provision Stores, Pahadi Chowk, Bazar Chowk, Gudhiyari, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Santosh Agrawal S/o Late Durga Prasad Agrawal R/o Shri Ram Provision Stores, Pahadi Chowk, Bazar Chowk, Gudhiyari, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - Rajesh Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Durga Prasad Agrawal R/o Shri Ram Provision Stores, Pahadi Chowk, Bazar Chowk, Gudhiyari, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - Sangita Agrawal D/o Late Durga Prasad Agrawal R/o Shri Ram Provision Stores, Pahadi Chowk, Bazar Chowk, Gudhiyari, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

¶15

5 - Smt. Bimla Devi W/o Late Narayan Prasad Agrawal R/o Shri Ram Provision Stores, Pahadi Chowk, Bazar Chowk, Gudhiyari, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

6 - Shalini Agrawal D/o Late Narayan Prasad Agrawal R/o Shri Ram Provision Stores, Pahadi Chowk, Bazar Chowk, Gudhiyari, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶17

7 - Mitesh Agrawal S/o Late Narayan Prasad Agrawal R/o Shri Ram Provision Stores, Pahadi Chowk, Bazar Chowk, Gudhiyari, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶18

8 - Neha Agrawal D/o Late Gopal Agrawal R/o Shri Ram Provision Stores, Pahadi Chowk, Bazar Chowk, Gudhiyari, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶19

9 - Payal Agrawal D/o Late Gopal Agrawal R/o Shri Ram Provision Stores, Pahadi Chowk, Bazar Chowk, Gudhiyari, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶20

10 - Kanchan Agrawal D/o Late Gopal Agrawal R/o Shri Ram Provision Stores, Pahadi Chowk, Bazar Chowk, Gudhiyari, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶21

11 - Vikram Agrawal S/o Late Gopal Agrawal R/o Shri Ram Provision Stores, Pahadi Chowk, Bazar Chowk, Gudhiyari, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶22

12 - Shrimati Poonam Agrawal D/o Late Durga Prasad Agrawal R/o C/o Ganpati Brokers, Lohar Para, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶23

	... Respondents
For Petitioners	: Mr. Ashwin Panicker, Advocate
For Respondent	: Mr. T.K. Jha & Mr. Rohan Kumbhare,
No. 1	Advocates

¶24

¶25

Division Bench Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J. & Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

¶26

Order on Board 03.12.2025

¶27

Per, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

¶28

In the present Petition the Petitioners is challenging the judgment dated 20.08.2024 passed by the Learned Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur in Appeal Number 25-A/2024 in which it was held that the Petitioners have failed to prove that they are tenants of the Respondents as they have filed the application in their personal capacity and not in the capacity of the owners of the Firm Ghisulal Puranlal Dongargarhwale, also there is no evidence of any payment of rent or rent agreement to the Respondents.

¶29

Subject matter in brief is that the Petitioners were in possession of Godown by virtue of being tenants of the Respondents for past 60 years. But the Respondent No.1 by use of criminal force dispossessed the Petitioners which was challenged before the Rent Controller, Rajnandgaon but the same was dismissed on the ground of tenancy not proved. The Learned Rent Control Tribunal too concurred with the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed the Appeal.

¶30

By way of this petition, following reliefs have been prayed:-

¶31

“10.1. The Hon'ble Court may call for records.

¶32

¶33

10.2. The Hon'ble Court may set aside the judgment dated 20.08.2024 of the Learned Rent Control Tribunal and declare the Petitioners as Tenants of the Respondents.

¶34

10.3. The Hon'ble Court may declare the eviction of the Petitioners by the Respondents as being unlawful and in contradiction to the provisions of the C.G. Rent Control Act, 2011.

¶35

10.4. The Hon'ble Court may as an alternative relief declare the Petitioners as Tenants and direct the Rent Controller to decide upon the legality of the action of Respondents in evicting the Petitioners.

¶36

10.5. The Hon'ble Court may grant cost of petition to the Petitioner.

¶37

10.6. The Hon'ble Court may grant any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice.”

¶38

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners have been conducting their proprietary businesses from a godown situated on land bearing Sheet No. 5, Plot Nos. 1560/2, 1561 and 1562 at Narsingh Ward, Dongargarh, which was originally rented to their father Late Ghisu Lal Agrawal about 60 years ago. After the death of the original landlord Durga Prasad Agrawal in 2011, Respondent No. 1 began collecting rent in lump sums without

¶39

¶40

issuing receipts and later became inclined to sell the property, whereupon he started damaging the godown to forcibly evict the Petitioners. The Petitioners lodged a police complaint on 06.12.2021 regarding threats and damage, and on 14.12.2021 filed an application under Section 12(1) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 seeking protection against illegal eviction. A demarcation conducted on 17.12.2021 in presence of both parties recorded the existence of a locked godown with signage of Vijay Trading Company. Respondent No. 1 claimed the structure was dismantled pursuant to a letter from the Municipal Council, yet on 26.12.2021 he allegedly demolished the godown with the aid of a JCB and assaulted the Petitioners, leading to registration of FIR No. 753/21. The Petitioners’ subsequent request before the Rent Controller to include issues relating to physical assault was rejected on grounds of delay, and ultimately their application was dismissed on 15.03.2024, with the Rent Control Tribunal also dismissing their appeal on 20.08.2024 on the ground that tenancy was not proved.

¶41

Mr. Ashwin Panicker, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order suffers from grave perversity, inasmuch as the Learned Rent Control Tribunal has completely misdirected itself both on facts and in law while recording a finding that the tenancy of the Petitioners was not proved, despite the overwhelming documentary and oral evidence placed on record. It is submitted that the Tribunal committed a manifest error in

¶42

¶43

rejecting the Petitioners’ application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC on the erroneous assumption that the Sellers’ License dated 20.05.2001 had already been filed, whereas the document relied upon by the Tribunal pertains to the year 2019, and the 2001 license is a crucial piece of evidence conclusively demonstrating that M/s Ajay Krishi Kendra was indeed a tenant of the Respondents’ godown at the relevant time. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal has failed to discharge its duty to render findings on a vital contradiction emerging from the depositions of Respondent No.1 and Petitioner No.1 while the Respondent claimed that Late Durga Prasad Agrawal had signed various rent receipts on behalf of third-party firms, the Petitioner’s testimony clearly states that the said Durga Prasad had received rent payments only on behalf of his own firms, thereby directly supporting the Petitioners’ case of tenancy; however, the Tribunal has not even adverted to this material aspect. It is further urged that the deposition of PW-Prateen Chauhan, which remained wholly unrebutted and categorically substantiated that CCTV cameras were installed in the godown at the instance of Petitioner No.1, has been ignored without any justification, though it directly corroborates the Petitioners’ possession and control of the premises as tenants. Equally, the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the significant admission made by Respondent No.1 that he had not issued any communication to the Dongargarh Municipal Corporation regarding its letter dated 30.10.2021, which was

¶44

¶45

curiously addressed to his father who had passed away nearly ten years prior. It is a circumstance that clearly casts doubt on the Respondent’s version and lends credence to the Petitioners’ consistent stand. It is therefore submitted that the findings of the Tribunal are unsustainable, perverse, and contrary to the material on record, warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court.

¶46

On the other hand, Mr. T.K. Jha, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that the present petition is wholly misconceived and liable to be dismissed at the very threshold, as the Petitioners are effectively seeking re-appreciation of evidence under the garb of supervisory jurisdiction, which is impermissible in law. It is submitted that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the authorities below that the Petitioners have failed to establish the existence of any landlord-tenant relationship in respect of the subject property, and such findings being based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence attain finality and are not open to interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is placed on the settled legal position that the High Court, while exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, cannot act as an appellate forum and cannot disturb factual conclusions merely because another view is possible or because the Petitioners allege insufficiency of evidence. In Union of India v. Himmat Singh Chahar (1999) 4 SCC 521 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that powers under Article 227 are not equivalent to appellate powers and cannot be invoked for a fresh

¶47

¶48

evaluation of facts. Similar principles were reiterated in Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing Society (1999) 6 SCC 82 and Mohan Amba Prasad Agnihotri v. Bhaskar Balwant Aheer, AIR 2000 SC 931 . Further, in Indian Overseas Bank v. IOB Staff Canteen Workers’ Union (2000) 4 SCC 245 , it was observed that the writ court cannot liberally re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own findings for those of a duly constituted fact-finding tribunal so long as the findings are supported by some relevant material. The Respondent further submits that the supervisory jurisdiction may be exercised only where there is a jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, or grave injustice, as explained in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai (2003) 6 SCC 675 —none of which is even remotely attracted in the present case. Again, in T.G.N. Kumar v. State of Kerala (2011) 2 SCC 772 , the Supreme Court emphasized that although Article 227 powers serve to keep tribunals within the bounds of their authority, such powers must be invoked sparingly and only in exceptional cases. In the present matter, the concurrent findings are reasoned, supported by evidence, and in no way perverse or irrational; therefore, it is humbly prayed that the instant petition be dismissed with costs.

¶49

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶50

From a thorough perusal of the record, it emerges that both the Rent Control Authority as well as the Rent Control Tribunal have passed reasoned and well-considered orders. The Rent Control

¶51

¶52

Authority, upon evaluating the pleadings and evidence, recorded a categorical finding that the landlord failed to establish the essential ingredients required for an eviction order. It was further noted that the premises in question had already been vacated, and therefore, no occasion remained for granting the relief of eviction. In the appeal preferred by the present applicants– landlords, the Rent Control Tribunal affirmed these findings, holding that the order of the Authority called for no interference.

¶53

The material on record further reveals that the Rent Control Authority, Rajnandgaon, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties, concluded that the applicants had failed to prove the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. The property in question is an open land, and the respondents were not shown to be in possession thereof. The applicants could not produce any credible evidence to demonstrate that the respondents were occupying the said premises as tenants or that any tenancy arrangement ever existed. Consequently, the eviction application was rejected.

¶54

The appellate findings of the Rent Control Tribunal are equally clear and reasoned. The Tribunal, upon an independent assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, held that the petitioners utterly failed to discharge the burden of proving the landlord-tenant relationship. No reliable rent receipts were brought on record, and the documents produced were found to be doubtful and unworthy of acceptance. The petitioners also did not examine

¶55

¶56

any independent witness to corroborate their version or to establish payment or receipt of rent. In the absence of any substantial or convincing evidence, the Tribunal rightly affirmed the dismissal of the eviction application.

¶57

In light of the above concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Rent Control Authority and the Rent Control Tribunal, there remains no ground for interference as it is a well settled law that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not appellate but supervisory. It cannot interfere with the finding of fact recorded by lower Court/Tribunal unless there is no evidence to support the finding or the finding is perverse. Hence, the entire record does not disclose any perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error warranting exercise of supervisory or revisional powers by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶58

Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merits, liable to be and is hereby dismissed .

¶59

No order as to cost(s).

¶60

sd/sd/(Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge

¶61

Vishakha

Ajay Agrawal v. Satish Agrawal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Agrawal v. Satish Agrawal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdish Prasad Soni Vs Ravishankar Gupta

Shanee (Shani) Pahadi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jeevan Patre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gulabchandra Samual Vs Manish Sharma ( Dead) through Jyoti Sharma

Dharmendra Vishwakarma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jai Singh Suryavanshi Vs the State of Chhattisgarh