Rekha Tamrakar Vs Rajendra Agrawal

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

Digitally VISHAKHA signed by BEOHAR VISHAKHA BEOHAR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 1929 of 2023

¶6

1 - Rekha Tamrakar W/o. Late Kishan Tamrakar, Aged About 54 Years All R/o. Fauwara Chowk, Manendragarh, P.S. And Tahsil Manendragarh District Koriya Chhattisgarh

¶7

2 - Aman Tamrakar, S/o. Late Kishan Tamrakar, Aged About 31 Years All R/o. Fauwara Chowk, Manendragarh, P.S. And Tahsil Manendragarh District Koriya Chhattisgarh

¶8

3 - Karan Tamrakar, S/o. Late Kishan Tamrakar, Aged About 27 Years All R/o. Fauwara Chowk, Manendragarh, P.S. And Tahsil Manendragarh District Koriya Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioners

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Rajendra Agrawal, S/o. Late Shri A.K. Agrawal, Aged About 63 Years President - Bhilai Agresen Education Society Bhiali, R/o. E.W.S. 306, Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. B.S. Rajput, Advocate

¶14

Division Bench

¶15

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

Order on Board

08.12.2025

2

Per, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

¶20

By way of this petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the impugned remand order dated 10.03.2023 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, on the ground that the said order is bad in law and suffers from manifest legal infirmities.

¶21

Subject matter in brief is that the learned Rent Control Authority, by final order dated 22.10.2021, held that the relationship between the petitioners and the respondent is that of landlord and tenant, and further found that the respondent had not paid rent since April 2017; accordingly, the Authority directed delivery of vacant possession within 15 days and awarded rent at ₹50,000 per month from April 2017 until possession was handed over. It is pertinent to mention that in November 2021, the vacant possession of the premises was already handed over to the petitioners by the Tahsildar, Nazul, Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.), and since then the petitioners have been in possession. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.10.2021, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, which, by impugned order dated 10.03.2023, remanded the matter to the Rent Control Authority with a direction to bring the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner on record and thereafter pass a fresh order after hearing both sides. Since the impugned order is apparently bad in law and suffers from patent infirmities, the

¶22

3

¶23

petitioners are constrained to challenge the same by way of this petition.

¶24

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

¶25

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 10.03.2023 passed by the learned rent control tribunal, Raipur (C.G.). ANNEXURE P/1.

¶26

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to affirm the order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the rent control authority Manendragarh District Koreya (C.G.).

¶27

10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to deposit the arrears of rent as per the order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the rent control authority Manendragarh District Koreya (C.G.).

¶28

10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief that this Hon'ble court may think fit be also granted in the interest of justice.”

¶29

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed an application under Section 12 of the C.G. Rent Control Act contending that they are owners of Plot Nos. 165/1 and 165/3 along with the super-structure constructed thereon, and that the first floor of the said structure admeasuring 6000 sq. ft. had been rented to the

¶30

4

¶31

respondent for running an I.T.I. College. The rented premises were let out on 01.01.2013 and a rent agreement dated 06.03.2013 was executed, valid till 31.12.2017; however, even after expiry of the agreement, the respondent continued to occupy the premises, failed to execute a fresh agreement despite repeated requests, and stopped paying rent from April 2017 onwards. The petitioners issued a legal notice dated 02.11.2018 terminating the tenancy w.e.f. 27.10.2018, but the respondent neither replied nor cleared the arrears, compelling the original owner, late Kishan Kumar Tamrakar, to file an application under Section 12 for eviction and recovery of arrears. After service of notice, the respondent appeared and filed reply on 23.09.2019 claiming that the premises were originally taken on rent in 2008 and that the rent agreement was valid only till 31.12.2012, further stating that rent from January 2013 to March 2017 had been paid without any written agreement and arrears would be paid only upon execution of a new agreement; subsequently, the respondent was proceeded ex parte on 18.08.2021. The Rent Control Authority, by final order dated 22.10.2021, held the relationship of landlord and tenant proved, found that rent had not been paid since April 2017, and directed delivery of vacant possession within 15 days along with rent of ₹50,000 per month till handing over of possession. The respondent challenged the said order before the Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, which by impugned order dated 10.03.2023 remanded the matter to the

¶32

5

¶33

Rent Control Authority for bringing the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner on record and for passing a fresh order. It is pertinent that vacant possession had already been taken over by the petitioners in November 2021 through the Tahsildar, Nazul, Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.), and since then the petitioners are in actual possession. Being aggrieved by the impugned remand order, which is manifestly erroneous and bad in law, the petitioners have filed the present petition.

¶34

Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 10.03.2023 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal is wholly unsustainable in law and on facts. The learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the Rent Control Authority was based on unimpeached material and stood affirmed by the conduct of the respondent, who continuously remained absent on several dates of hearing including 29.09.2019, 22.07.2020, 14.10.2020, 11.01.2021, 07.07.2021, 18.08.2021 and thereafter, and was rightly proceeded ex parte. It is further submitted that the respondent had admittedly not paid rent from April 2017 onwards and, therefore, had no right in law to continue in possession of the rented premises without payment of rent. The Tribunal failed to consider that the legal heirs of the deceased original applicant had already been ordered to be brought on record and thereafter the Rent Control Authority, upon due consideration, had passed the final order which was just, proper and in accordance with law. It is

¶35

6

¶36

also submitted that the possession of the rented premises had already been handed over to the petitioners in November 2021 through the Tahsildar, and in such circumstances, the remand of the matter for a fresh decision was wholly unwarranted and rendered academic. Instead of directing remand, the Tribunal ought to have upheld the well-reasoned order of the Rent Control Authority and directed the respondent to pay arrears of rent as determined therein. The remand order thus being contrary to the facts, law and circumstances of the case, is liable to be set aside by allowing the present petition.

¶37

On the other hand, Mr. B.S. Rajput, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned order dated 10.03.2023 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, remanding the matter to the Rent Control Authority, is fully justified and calls for no interference, as the order dated 22.10.2021 was passed in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. It is stated that the original landlord, late Shri Kishan Tamrakar, expired on 01.05.2021 during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, and although the petitioners moved an application for substitution of legal heirs on 07.07.2021, the Rent Control Authority allowed the said application the same day, illegally closing the respondent’s opportunity to cross-examine the newly added petitioners, thereby depriving him of his valuable right of defence. It is submitted that the premises were originally taken on rent in 2008 under a valid agreement dated 24.12.2007, which remained in force until

¶38

7

¶39

31.12.2012, and despite repeated requests, the landlord never executed a fresh agreement for the period 2013–2017, although a duly drafted and signed agreement was sent by the respondent. The respondent, being an educational institution—Agrasen I.T.I., Manendragarh—required a duly executed rent agreement for purposes of recognition and affiliation by statutory authorities, and the landlord’s refusal to execute such agreement caused serious hardship, loss, and injury to the institution. It is further submitted that the respondent duly paid rent from January 2013 to March 2017, and only stopped payment when the landlord exerted pressure to forcibly vacate the premises without executing a new agreement. The proceedings before the Rent Control Authority were conducted ex parte without granting proper opportunity of hearing or adducing evidence, resulting in a perverse and illegal order dated 22.10.2021. The learned Tribunal, therefore, rightly held that the matter required fresh adjudication after giving both parties full opportunity, particularly as the substitution of legal heirs had not been lawfully completed. Hence, the remand order is proper, legal, and does not require any interference by this Hon’ble Court.

¶40

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

¶41

From perusal of the record, it appears that under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, the Rent Control Authority, Manendragarh, passed an order of eviction and further directed the tenant to pay

¶42

8

¶43

rent at the rate of ₹50,000/- per month from 01.04.2017 till eviction of the suit premises. Against the said order, the tenant preferred an appeal, in which the Rent Control Tribunal, without properly considering the material on record, held that after the death of the original landlord, Shri Kishan Tamrakar, the legal heirs were not brought on record, and on that basis remanded the matter while setting aside the order dated 22.10.2021, with a direction to take the legal heirs on record after giving due opportunity of hearing.

¶44

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the Rent Control Authority, vide order dated 07.07.2021, had already allowed the application for substitution of the legal heirs of late Kishan Tamrakar when such an application was filed. Thereafter, despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the tenant, and consequently, the tenant was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 18.08.2021. Since the Rent Control Authority had already substituted the legal heirs of the original landlord, the reason assigned by the Tribunal for remand appears to be erroneous.

¶45

We have also considered the further submission that during the pendency of the present petition, the tenant has already vacated the suit premises, and therefore, the only surviving issue before the Rent Control Authority is limited to determination of arrears of rent as per the order dated 22.10.2021. As the respondent-tenant was proceeded ex parte before the Rent Control Authority, Manendragarh, and did not lead any evidence,

¶46

9

¶47

the Tribunal’s order setting aside the proceedings deserves to be interfered with.

¶48

Accordingly, while setting aside the order of the Tribunal, the matter is remanded back to the Rent Control Authority only for the limited purpose of deciding the issue relating to arrears of rent, since the premises have already been vacated.

¶49

The parties are directed to appear before the Rent Control Authority, Manendragarh, on 12.01.2026 and adduce evidence confined to the question of arrears of rent. The Rent Control Authority shall thereafter record the evidence and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law. It is made clear that the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Authority, Manendragarh, stands affirmed, and the remand is restricted solely to adjudication of arrears of rent as claimed by the landlord. The matter is accordingly remitted to the Rent Control Authority, and the order of the Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, is set aside.

¶50

With the aforesaid direction/observation, the petition stands

¶51

disposed of.

¶52

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

¶53

Vishakha

Rekha Tamrakar v. Rajendra Agrawal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rekha Tamrakar v. Rajendra Agrawal

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

S.R. Health Care Services Private Limited Vs Saheli Jewelers

Union of India Vs Deshraj Sahu

Union of India Vs Tirtha Kumar Patle

Lokesh Sinha Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Roshan Rajak Vs Hetan Rajak

Union of India Vs Rakesh Kumar Rathore