Tenants challenged concurrent eviction orders holding them liable for eviction under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act after ex-parte proceedings. The High Court found they had ample opportunity, never sought to set aside the ex-parte order, and payment of rent admitted tenancy. Writ petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
2026:CGHC:11160-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SHYNA AJAY
Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN
WP227 No. 269 of 2026
1 - M/s Manohar Hardware Mart (Formerly Known As M/s Ferumal And Sons), Through Proprietor Manohar Motwani, S/o Late Parmanand Motwani, Presently Aged About 69 Years, Address- Dadabaadi Parisar, M.G. Road, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur C.G.
2 - Manohar Motwani S/o Late Parmanand Motwani, Aged About 69 Years, Address- Dadabaadi Parisar, M.G. Road, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur C.G. (Non-Applicants)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
Shri Rishabh Dev Mandir Trust Through Acting President and Trustee Shri Abhay Bhansali, Address- Rishabh Dev Jain Mandir, Sadar Bazar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur C.G. (Applicant)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Soni, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None
2
DB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board 09/03 /2026
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.
“10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and the impugned order dated 15/1/26 (Annexure P-2) and remand the case for adjudication on merits by giving opportunity to petitioners to file return and led their defense in the interest of justice and for the proper adjudication of the case.
10.2) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the court below, for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
10.3) This Hon'ble Court may also be pleased to grant the cost of the petition to the petitioners.
10.4) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deem
3
fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the
petitioners in the interest of justice.
4
for reasons unknown. Thereafter, by order dated 25.4.2024, the RCA allowed the application, observing that although the notice to vacate was issued on 27.12.2019, the petitioners had not vacated the premises even after expiry of the six-month period. While the RCA held that there was no default in the payment of rent, it nonetheless passed an order of eviction. Aggrieved by the same and upon gaining the knowledge of the eviction order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur. Though the appeal was initially dismissed on the ground of delay, the petitioners challenged the dismissal in WPC No.2519/2025 and vide order dated 27.11.2025, this Court set-aside the dismissal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on merits. Subsequently, the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal and upheld the findings and order passed by the RCA. It is contended that the Tribunal passed the impugned order without considering the contentions raised by the petitioners/tenants. Hence, this Petition.
5
landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. By failing to produce such proof, the respondent/landlord has circumvented the appropriate civil remedies available under the law, therefore, the present suit is totally misconceived. He further submits that the petitioners were denied a fair opportunity of being heard and were erroneously proceeded against ex-parte. Accordingly, the RCA passed the eviction order in the absence of any defence on rebuttal. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that an order premised on such a procedural vacuum is per se illegal, as it violates the fundamental principles of natural justice. When an appeal was filed, the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, dismissed it in a casual and perfunctory manner, without due consideration of the legal grounds raised therein. In view of the above backdrop, the matter ought to be remanded for fresh consideration, to ensure that the petitioners are afforded a proper opportunity of being heard and to submit their defence on merits.
6
the petitioners/tenants and the matter was subsequently fixed for 30.5.2022. On the latter date, a Vakalatnama was filed on behalf of the petitioners/tenants and the counsel entered appearance. A request for time to file the reply was made and the matter was accordingly fixed for 24.6.2022, for filing of reply to the eviction application. On 24.6.2022, counsel for the petitioners/tenants appeared and obtained the relevant documents to prepare a reply. The matter was further fixed for filing of reply on 22.7.2022, on which date neither the petitioners nor their counsel appeared. The proceedings were subsequently adjourned through several dates i.e. 20.9.2022, 6.10.2022, 15.11.2022 and again on 12.12.2022, before being fixed on 13.1.2023 for filing of reply. On that date, the Presiding Officer being occupied with other administrative exigencies, the matter was further adjourned to 2.2.2023. On 2.2.2023, the Court granted a last opportunity to file the reply and fixed the matter for 15.2.2023. However, on the said date, owing to condolence proceedings, the matter was adjourned to 2.3.2023. On that date, on account of the continued absence of the petitioners and their counsel, the RCA proceeded against them ex-parte. Notably, even after ex-parte proceedings were initiated, no application was preferred for setting aside the same. This procedural lapse lead to the eventual passing of the eviction order in the absence of a contested trial.
7
they neglected to file any application to set-aside the ex-parte order. The RCA, after considering the entire record, rightly identified the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. Moreover, the landlord demanded arrears for nine months (1.1.2021 to 30.9.2021) amounting to Rs.9315/-, upon which, the tenants/petitioners paid rent up to February 2023. The fact that the tenants subsequently paid rent up to February 2023 itself is suggestive of the existence of tenancy and serves as a clear admission of the landlord-tenant relationship. Consequently, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners that such a relationship has not been proved is devoid of merit.
24. Law relating to derivative title of the landlord (lessor) and challenge, if made, to such title by the tenant (lessee) during subsistence of tenancy in relation to demised property is fairly well settled. Though by virtue of Section 116 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the tenant is estopped from challenging the title of his landlord during continuance of the tenancy, yet the tenant/lessee is entitled to challenge the derivative title of an assignee/vendee of the original landlord (lessor) of the demised property in an action brought by the
8
assignee/vendee against the tenant for his eviction from the demised property under the rent laws. This right of a tenant is, however, subject to one caveat that the tenant/lessee has not attorned to the assignee/vendee. In other words, if the tenant/lessee pays rent to the assignee/vendee of the tenanted property then it results in creation of an attornment between the parties which, in turn, deprives the tenant/lessee to challenge the derivative title of an assignee/vendee in the proceedings.
9
directs the judgment- debtor to convey the suit property to the decree holder. It is only after registration that the transfer of title would take place from one to the other. 14. In the instant case, admittedly, the decree for specific performance was a conditional decree and the decree holder (the respondent herein) had failed to fulfill the condition and, therefore, the decree could not fructify into a conveyance. In such circumstances, there was no transfer of property from the appellant to the respondent. Thus, there was no termination of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties by virtue of Section 111(d) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In consequence, there was no good reason for the High Court to set aside concurrent findings of fact returned by the two courts below.
10
opportunity to file their reply, which they chose to avoid for reasons best known to them. Therefore, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners’ nonappearance was due to the lapses of their advocate is untenable and cannot be justified.
Sd/Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge
Shyna Ajay
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the landlord-tenant relationship was proved despite the tenants' claim of possession under a licence since 1957.
Whether the tenants were denied natural justice by being proceeded against ex-parte before the Rent Controlling Authority.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bismillah Be (Dead) By Legal Representatives Vs. Majeed ShahRelied on¶9
(2017) 2 SCC 274 · Who else cites this
Som Nath Vs. Ravinder KumarRelied on¶10
Civil Appeal No.4484/2025 decided on 25.3.2025
4 provisions across 3 enactments
M/s Manohar Hardware Mart (Formerly Known As M/s Ferumal And Sons), Through Proprietor Manohar Motwani
Manohar Motwani
Shri Rishabh Dev Mandir Trust Through Acting President and Trustee Shri Abhay Bhansali
Sanjay S. Agrawal
Amitendra Kishore Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
