1 2025:CGHC:7251 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1462 of 2021 1 - Sardar Harbans Singh S/o Late Sardar Mehar Singh Aged About 80 Years R/o Pendra Road, District- Gourella-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sheela Ray W/o Late Sushil Kumar Ray Aged About 71 Years R/o Pendra Road, District- Gourella-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh., District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh 3 - Dev Kumar Mehta S/o Late Bhupendra Nath Mehta Aged About 61 Years R/o Pendra Road, District- Gourella-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 – Collector/ District Magistrate District- Gourella-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer Revenue Pendra Road, District- Gouella- Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sanjay Singhai S/o Laxmichand Jain Aged About 57 Years R/o Gandhi Chowk Pendra Road, District- Gourella- Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Sandeep Singhal S/o Laxmichand Jain Aged About 53 Years R/o Gandhi Chowk Pendra Road, District- Gourella- Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 3/ State : Shri Pramod Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondents No.4 & 5 : Shri Ashok Soni, Advocate. Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10.02.2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to immediately stop the demolition process, which is going on the shop of petitioners. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 not to pass any order upon the application dated 15-02-2021 filed by the respondent No.4 & 5 till respondent No.4 & 5 initiate the proceeding under Rent Control Act. 10.3 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon'ble court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. The facts in a nutshell are that the petitioners are tenants of respondents No. 4 & 5. They have been running the shops situated at Ward No.5, Gandhi Chowk, Amarkantak Road, Tehsil Pendra Road, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh, for more than 50 years. On 15.02.2021, respondents No.4 & 5 moved an application before respondent No. 3 seeking permission to demolish the subject property, including the shops. The petitioners filed a reply to the said application on 22.2.2021 before respondent No. 3. On 2.3.2021, respondents No.4 & 5 started the demolition. It is further pleaded that respondents No.4 & 5 filed an application under Section 23 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 before the Rent Control Authority, which was dismissed on 26.12.2002. A civil revision filed by respondents No.4 & 5 was also 3 dismissed vide order dated 3.1.2006. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are tenants and are paying rent properly to the landlords. There was no reason to move an application for the demolition of the shops, and no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue). Respondents No.4 & 5 started the demolition of the subject property contrary to the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011. She would further contend that the respondent authorities may be directed to stop the demolition of the subject shops and that respondent No.3 may be directed not to pass any order on the application moved by respondents No.4 & 5 dated 15.2.2021. 4. Shri Ashok Soni, counsel appearing for respondents No.4 & 5 would submit that on 21.7.2008, the mother of respondents No.4 & 5 moved an application before the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Gaurella, District Bilaspur for the demolition of her house on account of dilapidated condition. On 28.1.2009, permission was granted by the Nagar Panchayat, Gaurella. He would contend that on 29.1.2009, a notice was issued under Section 221 of the Municipalities Act, 1960 to the mother of respondents No.4 & 5, namely, Smt. Kasturi Bai Jain. On 5.2.2009, notices were issued to the petitioners to vacate the shops. On 23.7.2020, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), issued a memo to respondents No.4 & 5 to demolish the house. On 15.2.2021, the authorities started the demolition of the subject shops. On 3.3.2021, the petitioners raised an objection before the Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), District Gaurella. He would contend -4- that a survey was conducted on 4.3.2021, and the stay order passed on 3.3.2021 was cancelled, granting permission to continue with the demolition. He would further contend that vide order dated 8.3.2021, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Gaurella granted time to the petitioners to vacate the premises. He would also contend that the proceeding, which was pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer, has already been concluded. The subject house has become dilapidated and is dangerous for local residents, including the shopkeepers. He would further argue that the contesting respondents are landlords and the petitioners are tenants. He would also argue that the petitioners have no right to retain the possession of the shops particularly, when the condition of the building has deteriorated. He would state that the application moved by respondents No.4 & 5 dated 15.2.2021 has already been decided and thus, the petition has become infructuous. 5. Learned counsel for the State would support the contention made by counsel for respondents No.4 & 5. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 7. Admittedly, the petitioners are tenants and are running shops in a building that has become dilapidated. The Municipal as well as Revenue Authorities have submitted reports regarding the condition of the building. The photographs have been filed by counsel for respondents No. 4 & 5 to demonstrate the condition of the building. From a perusal of the photographs, it is evident that 5 the building may collapse at any time, and it may cause loss to the public and property. 8. The petitioners have sought a direction that respondent No.3 may be restrained from passing any order on the application moved by respondents No.4 & 5 dated 15.2.2021. A perusal of the documents filed by respondents No.4 & 5 would show that the application dated 15.2.2021 has already been decided and the petitioners have not challenged that order. The physical condition of the building is not good and it is not safe for the general public. Therefore, the Municipal and Revenue Authorities have opined to demolish the building where the petitioners are running shops. At present, no case is pending consideration before the Rent Control Authority, and thus, the provisions of the Rent Control Act would not apply. The petitioners, being tenants, cannot claim ownership rights over the property. 9. Considering the above-discussed facts, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi