1 2025:CGHC:27149-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 264 of 2025 1 - Rajesh Traders Through Its Proprietor Shri Gyan Chand Chhajed, Aged About 65 Years, S/o Late Rawal Mal Chhajed, Having Address At Moti Bhawan, Makai Chowk, Dhamtari (C.G.), 493773 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Gourishankar Rice Mill Through Shri Vinod Agarwal, Having Address At Sadar Bazar, Amapara Ward, Tehsil And District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 493773 ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Saurabh Jain, Advocate for Respondent :- Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DB- Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 24.06.2025 1. The instant petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 13/02/2025, passed by Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.), in MJC Appeal No.36/2024, wherein, the appeal VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 filed by the appellant (petitioner herein) for directing the presence of Municipal Corporation Dhamtari as necessary witness in Original Case vide Case No.202202130400019/A-90(1) Year 2021-22, has been dismissed by the Tribunal. Hence this petition. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought for following reliefs:- “i. To kindly call for entire records of the case vide Case No. 202202130400019/A-90(1) Year 2021-22, pending before the Rent Control Authority Dhamtari. ii. To kindly quash the impugned order dated 13/02/2025 passed by the CG Rent Control Tribunal Dhamtari in Appeal No.36/2024, thereby directing to allow the petitioner to call & for presence of Municipal Corporation Dhamtari as necessary witness before the Rent Control Authority Dhamtari. Iii. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 3. Facts of the case are that the respondent has filed an application before the Rent Control Authority Dhamtari vide case No. 202202130400019/A-90(1) Year 2021-22, thereby seeking eviction of the petitioner and recovery of rent from the demised leased property alleged to be owned by the respondent. The said lease allotted to the father of the proprietor of respondent was not renewed and was eventually terminated by the Municipal 3 Corporation Dhamtari, vide letter/order dated 04/10/2014, for violating the terms and conditions of the lease deed. Since the current owner of the demised property is Municipal Corporation Dhamtari, the petitioner during the pendency of case before Rent Control Authority Dhamtari, filed an application seeking permission for the presence of Municipal Corporation as necessary witness, so as to bring on record as to who is the actual owner of the said demised property. However, the said application of the petitioner was rejected by the Rent Control Authority Dhamtari vide its order dated 22/07/2024. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the CG Rent Control Tribunal Raipur vide Appeal No.36/2024 which was also dismissed vide order dated 13/02/2025. Hence the instant petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the lease of the alleged demised property has been terminated by non-renewal, the actual owner is the Municipal Corporation Dhamtari, which is a necessary party and ought to have been summoned as a witness by the Rent Control Authority Dhamtari. Further, both the Rent Control Authority and the CG Rent Control Tribunal failed to appreciate that the respondent, having ceased to be the landlord after the lease termination dated 04/10/2014, lacks the locus standi to file the eviction application. The impugned orders dated 22/07/2024 and 13/02/2025 infringe upon the petitioner’s constitutional rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the 4 Constitution of India, were passed without affording a fair hearing, and consequently violate the principles of natural justice and the rule of law. Therefore, these orders are illegal, improper, and liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the lease termination and non-renewal do not affect the respondent’s right to file the eviction application, as the respondent was the lawful tenant and possessed sufficient interest in the demised property at the relevant time. The Municipal Corporation Dhamtari’s presence as a witness was neither necessary nor relevant to the determination of the eviction proceedings before the Rent Control Authority and the CG Rent Control Tribunal. The impugned orders dated 22/07/2024 and 13/02/2025 were passed following due process, after providing the petitioner a fair opportunity to be heard, and do not violate any constitutional rights of the petitioner. Therefore, the orders are valid, legal, and sustainable in the eyes of law. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 7. After careful consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for both parties and upon perusal of the entire record, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition 5 does not disclose any sufficient ground for interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on merits. 8. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to raise all the grounds and contentions, including those raised in this petition, before the appropriate trial court at the time of final hearing of the eviction proceedings. The trial court shall consider and adjudicate the matter independently on its own merits in accordance with law, after affording a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties, without being influenced by any observations made in this order. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Vishakha