Dismissed¶30

Balram Kodwani v. Smt. Reema Sahu W/o Shri Naresh Sahu

Chhattisgarh HC26 Feb 2025WPC/990/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CGHC Bilaspur WPC No. 990 of 2025, decided 27/02/2025, per Sachin Singh Rajput J with Rajani Dubey J; eviction under S.12(1)(f) Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act 2011 of hosiery-shop tenants (Kodwani family) by landlords (Sahu family) in Korba; appeal under S.13 dismissed by Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur (Appeal No. 01A/2024) confirming Rent Controller, Korba order dated 15.12.2023 (Case No. 202007050100002/A-90 year 2019-20); writ petition dismissed; landlord-tenant relationship admitted so suit not dismissible for violation of S.4; non-framing of issues does not vitiate order (S.10); three months' time to vacate; monthly rent Rs. 300/-.

What did the court decide?

Three months' time granted to the petitioners/tenants for vacation of the disputed shop and handing over possession to the respondents/landlord. ¶30

Balram Kodwani Vs Smt. Reema Sahu W/o Shri Naresh Sahu — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Three months' time granted to the petitioners/tenants for vacation of the disputed shop and handing over possession to the respondents/landlord.

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the findings recorded by the Rent Controller and the Tribunal directing eviction of the petitioners/tenants from the disputed shop are perverse and contrary to law, and liable to be set aside. +2 more

¶25

Court's answer

From perusal of the documents on record, tenancy over the disputed shop is not disputed.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The view taken by both the Courts below (Rent Controller and Tribunal) is fully in consonance with the material on record and the provisions of law; hence no interference with the order impugned is warranted.

¶27

Key takeaways

On the maintainability objection regarding violation of Section 4 of the Act of 2011, endorsing the Rent Controller's view: where there is admission of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the suit cannot be dismissed on that very ground.ratio¶27
On the non-framing-of-issues objection, endorsing the Tribunal's Section 10-based view: where the Rent Controller has decided the suit on all the points separately, mere non-framing of the issues cannot vitiate the entire order, and the objection raised on this count stands turned down.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh HC, Bilaspur (per Sachin Singh Rajput, J, with Rajani Dubey, J; order in chamber dated 27/02/2025) dismissed WPC No. 990 of 2025 filed by tenants (Balram, Amarlal and Mayadevi Kodwani) against the order dated 03.02.2025 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur in Appeal No. 01A/2024, which had upheld the Rent Controller, Korba's order dated 15.12.2023 directing their eviction from a shop on Khasra No. 997/2, Main Road, Purani Basti, Korba under Section 12(1)(f) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011. Holding that tenancy stood undisputed and the concurrent findings of both Courts below were fully in consonance with the record and law, the Court declined interference. It endorsed that (i) with admission of landlord–tenant relationship, the suit cannot be dismissed for violation of Section 4, and (ii) relying on Section 10, mere non-framing of issues does not vitiate the order where all points were decided separately. Three months' time was granted to vacate and hand over possession; original monthly rent was Rs. 300/-.

2025:CGHC:9868-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 990 of 2025

¶6

1. Balram Kodwani S/o Late Shri Chetan Das Kodwani Aged About 45 Years Occupation Business Proprietor Ganesh Hosiery Purana Bus Stand Main Road Korba Tahsil And District - Korba (C.G.)

¶7

2. Amarlal Kodwani S/o Late Shri Chetan Das Kodwani Aged About 41 Years R/o Ganesh Hosiery Purana Bus Stand Main Road Korba Tahsila And District - Korba (C.G.) 3. Smt. Mayadevi Kodwani W/o Late Shri Chetandas Kodwani Aged About 66 Years R/o Ganesh Hosiery Purana Bus Stand Main Road Korba Tahsila And District - Korba (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioners

¶9

versus

¶10

1. Smt. Reema Sahu W/o Shri Naresh Sahu R/o Purani Basti Korba Distric - Korba (C.G.)

¶11

2. Smt. Leena Sahu W/o Shri Premkumar Sahu R/o Purani Basti Korba District -Korba (C.G.)

¶12

3. Virendra Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Teemanlal Sahu R/o Purani Basti Korba District -Korba (C.G.)

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

For Petitioners : Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondents : None

¶15

{Hon’ble (Smt.) Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}

¶16

(Order in Chamber dated 27/02/2025)

¶17

Per Sachin Singh Rajput,J

¶18

This petition has been filed against the order dated 03.02.2025 passed by Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, CG (Annexure P-1) in Appeal No. 01A/2024 by which the appeal filed against the order dated 15.12.2023 passed by Rent

¶19

¶20

Controller, Korba, CG in Case No. 202007050100002/A-90 year 2019-20, has been dismissed.

¶21

Facts in short: Father of the petitioner namely Late Chetandas Kodwani had taken the disputed shop constructed on Khasra No. 997/2, Main Road, Purani Basti, Korba, on monthly rent of Rs. 300/- about 40 years back from its owner namely Late Timanlal and was running the business of Hosiery since then. The rent was being regularly deposited in the Court. Subsequently, respondents/landlord orally asked the petitioners/tenants to vacate the disputed shop but they did not do that. Therefore the respondents/Landlord filed an application under Section 12 (1)(f) of Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (for short “Act of 2011”) for handing over the vacant possession of the rented shop. 3. The petitioners/tenant by filing the reply to the application moved by the respondents/landlord denied the averments made therein. It was pleaded that the rented shop was taken on rent about 40 years back and that the rent up to September, 2020 was deposited before the CD of the Civil Court on 03.03.2020. It is denied that the petitioners/tenants were orally asked to vacate the disputed shop or was there any unbecoming scene created by the respondents-landlord.

¶22

Both the parties led their evidence to establish their case. Rent Controller vide its order dated 15.12.2023 allowed the application of respondents/landlord and directed that the petitioners/tenant be evicted from the disputed shop and its vacant possession be handed over to the respondents/land lord in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2011. Challenging the said order dated 15.12.2023 the petitioners/tenant preferred the appeal under Section 13 of the Act of 2011 before the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur,

¶23

¶24

(hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) which after hearing the parties dismissed the same by the order under challenge in this petition dated 03.02.2025.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings recorded by the Rent Controller as also that of the Tribunal are perverse and contrary to law. He submits that the tenancy of the disputed shop had begun about four decades back, and the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is also established. He submits that both the Courts below have not considered the documents on record in its proper perspective and therefore the findings of both the courts below are liable to be set aside.

¶26

Heard counsel for the petitioner/tenant and perused the material on record.

¶27

From perusal of the documents on record, tenancy over the disputed shop is not disputed. Learned Rent Controller on the basis of evidence brought before it by the respondents/landlord directed the petitioners/tenant to vacate the disputed shop. This finding has subsequently been affirmed in appeal as well. As regards maintainability of the suit for violation of Section 4 of the Act of 2011, it has been dealt with by the Rent Controller observing that as there is admission of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, suit cannot be dismissed on that very ground. Learned Tribunal relying on Section 10 of the Act of 2011 has held that framing of issue may not be necessary for deciding the case. It is observed that as the Rent Controller has decided the suit on all the points separately, mere non framing of the issues cannot vitiate the entire order, and accordingly, the objection so raised to this effect has been turned down. The view taken by both the Courts below are thus fully in consonance with the material on record and the provisions of law as well. No

¶28

¶29

interference with the order impugned is thus warranted by this Court.

¶30

Petition therefore being without any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶31

Three month time as sought for by the petitioners/tenants is granted for vacation of the disputed shop and handing the same over to the respondents/landlord.

¶32

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

¶33

Jyotishi

Balram Kodwani v. Smt. Reema Sahu W/o Shri Naresh Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balram Kodwani v. Smt. Reema Sahu W/o Shri Naresh Sahu

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

Smt. Yamini Rajput Vs Krishna Kumar Rajput

Union of India Vs Abhishek Jain

Juggilal Agrawal Vs Ramawtar Goenka and Anr.

Union of India Vs Bharat Lal Patel

Union of India Vs Iradhar Prasad Sahu

Vijay Kumar Gandhi Vs Indian Red Cross Society