Dismissed¶¶32

Smt. Rashmi Sahu v. Shri Thakur Jugal Kishore Mandir Trust Committee

Chhattisgarh HC15 Sept 2025WPC/3956/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Eviction of tenant by registered temple trust; Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act 2011, S.12(2) r/w sub-paras (a) & (h), Sr.No.11, Schedule 2; dilapidated/demolition-prone building; Municipal Corporation notice; Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act 1956, Ss.309/310; rent default (Rs.100 per month); concurrent findings upheld as neither perverse nor contrary to record; Article 226 writ dismissed, no cost; Neutral citation 2025:CGHC:47422-DB; DB: Sanjay K. Agrawal & Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ.; Tribunal Appeal No.71-A/2024; Rent Controller order dt. 23.04.2024; Tribunal order dt. 23.06.2025.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed with no cost. ¶¶32

Smt. Rashmi Sahu Vs Shri Thakur Jugal Kishore… — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; writ petition dismissed with no cost.

¶¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders of the Rent Controller, Raipur and the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal granting eviction of the suit premises in favour of the respondent-Trust suffer from perversity or are contrary to the record and deserve to be set aside in writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

¶¶27

Court's answer

All the grounds/conditions enumerated under Section 12(2) read with sub-paras (a) & (h) of Sr. No.11 appended with Schedule 2 of the Act of 2011 are completely meted out in the present case.

¶¶31

Ratio / Principle

The learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Tribunal are absolutely justified in recording concurrent findings while granting order of eviction in favour of the respondent-Trust; the said findings are neither perverse nor contrary to the record and are affirmed by this Court.

¶¶31

Key takeaways

The writ petition does not merit interference and is dismissed, with no order as to costs.ratio¶¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Division Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal & Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ.), WPC No. 3956 of 2025, decided 16.09.2025 [2025:CGHC:47422-DB] — Writ petition under Article 226 dismissed. Petitioner-tenant challenged the order dated 23.06.2025 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur in Appeal No.71-A/2024 affirming the Rent Controller, Raipur's order dated 23.04.2024 directing her eviction at the instance of respondent-Trust under Section 12(2) read with sub-para (h) of Sr. No.11, Schedule 2, Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 — premises declared dilapidated by Municipal Corporation, Raipur notice Ex.P/1C dated 17.12.2014 with threat of demolition under Sections 309/310, Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, coupled with default in payment of monthly rent of Rs.100/- despite notices (Ex.P/2; legal notice Ex.P/03 dated 16.09.2016). Held: all grounds under sub-paras (a) & (h), Sr. No.11, Schedule 2 satisfied; concurrent findings of the authorities below neither perverse nor contrary to the record; affirmed. No cost.

¶1

Page No.1 of 4 IN WPC-3956-2025

¶2

2025:CGHC:47422-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 3956 of 2025

¶6

Smt. Rashmi Sahu W/o Late Ramchandra Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Thakur Jugal Kishor Mandir Parisar Bada, Nayapara, Raipur, Tahsil And Distt. Raipur (C.G.)

¶7

Digitally SAIFAN signed KHAN by SAIFAN KHAN

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

Shri Thakur Jugal Kishore Mandir Trust Committee Sadar East Nayapara, Raipur, Tahsil And Distt. Raipur (C.G.), Through V. P. Dubey (Secretary), Shri Thakur Jugal Kishore Mandir Trust Committee, Nayapara, Raipur (C.G.) (Wrongly Through V. P. Dubey (Secretary) Not Mentioned By Rent Control Tribunal)

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

[Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)]

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, Advocate Respondents : Mr. Soumya Rai, Advocate

¶14

Division Bench

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

Order on Board

16.09.2025

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned order dated 23.06.2025 (Annexure-P/01), passed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur (for short the “Tribunal”) in Appeal No.71-A/2024, whereby the order passed by the

¶20

Page No.2 of 4 IN WPC-3956-2025

¶21

Rent Controller, Raipur dt. 23.04.2024, directing eviction of the suit premises to the petitioner herein has been affirmed.

¶22

The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop:

¶23

2.1 The respondent- Landlord is a registered Trust, who filed an application for eviction under Section 12(2) read with sub-para (h) of Sr. No.11 appended with Schedule 2 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (for short the “Act of 2011”) stating inter alia that: petitioner herein (i.e. Smt. Rashmi Sahu) is their tenant for a monthly rent of Rs.100/-; since the condition of the building is dilapidated, the concerned Municipal Corporation has directed for vacation of the same otherwise same will be demolished in view of provisions contained under Sections 309/310 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956; the rent has not been paid by the petitioner/Tenant for 03 months; notice for eviction has also been served on the petitioner-Tenant on 14.03.2014, but despite that the suit premises has not been vacated. The appellant/tenant filed her reply disputing the averments made in the application for eviction by stating that the order of vacation/demolition has been passed by the concerned Municipal Corporation in collusion with the respondent-Trust and, as such, the application deserves to be rejected.

¶24

2.2 The learned Rent Controller after appreciating the oral and

¶25

Page No.3 of 4 IN WPC-3956-2025

¶26

documentary evidence available on record allowed the application filed by the respondent/Trust holding inter alia that: the relationship between the respondent-Trust and the petitioner to be that of landlord and tenant is duly established; the tenancy of the suit premises is on a monthly rent of Rs.100/-; the building in question has become dilapidated and the tenant is also defaulter in making payment of rent. As such, the respondent-Trust is entitled for eviction of the suit premises. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the Rent Controller, the petitioner/Tenant preferred an appeal before the learned Tribunal, which stood rejected by the impugned order affirming the order of the learned rent Controller.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submits that both the authorities below are absolutely unjustified in granting order of eviction in favour of the respondent-Trust by recording findings which are perverse and contrary to the record. Therefore, the present writ petition be allowed by setting aside both the order passed by the authorities below.

¶28

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Trust supported the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of this petition.

¶29

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submission made herein above and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

¶30

Page No.4 of 4 IN WPC-3956-2025

¶31

A careful perusal of the record would show that the Municipal Corporation, Raipur has issued notice (Ex.P/1C) to the respondentTrust on 17.12.2014 stating therein that the house in question is in dilapidated condition and therefore it be vacated accordingly otherwise the same will be demolished in accordance with law. Pursuant to which, notice has been issued by the respondent-Trust to the petitioner vide Ex.P/2 and, thereafter, legal notice was also issued vide Ex.P/03 on 16.09.2016, which was received by the petitioner vide Ex.P/04. Thereafter, when the suit premises was not vacated by the petitioner, the respondent filed application for eviction on 01.07.2017. As such, all the grounds/conditions enumerated under Section 12(2) read with sub-paras (a) & (h) of Sr.No.11 appended with Schedule 2 of the Act of 2011 are completely meted out in the present case and, therefore, the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Tribunal are absolutely justified in recording concurrent findings while granting order of eviction in favour of the respondent-Trust, as the said findings are neither perverse nor contrary to the record. We hereby affirmed the said findings.

¶32

Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. It deserves to be and is hereby dismissed . No cost.

¶33

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

¶34

s@if

Smt. Rashmi Sahu v. Shri Thakur Jugal Kishore Mandir Trust Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rashmi Sahu v. Shri Thakur Jugal Kishore Mandir Trust Committee

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

V. K. Tiwari Vs Union of India

Mecon Limited Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Tax

Jaipal, Vs Government of M.P.

Pramod @ Manoj Tiwari Vs Shri Thakur Jugal Kishore Mandir Trust Committee

Ramavtar Goyanka Vs Juggilal Agrawal (Died through lrs)

Samay Singh Meena Vs Union of India