1 2025:CGHC:30067-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 400 of 2023 1 - Pradeep Kumar Martin S/o Late Shri H.S. Martin Aged About 68 Years R/o Martin Hospital Campus, Bastar Road, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 2 - Ruba Bernard W/o Late Shri Vijay Barnard Aged About 65 Years Through Attorney Holder Dr. Pradeep Kumar Martin, R/o Martin Hospital Campus, Bastar Road, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 3 - Teresa Henry W/o Dr. Anil Henry Aged About 57 Years Through Attorney Holder Dr. Pradeep Kumar Martin, R/o Martin Hospital Campus, Bastar Road, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 4 - Shashi Anandi D/o Late Shri H.S. Martin Aged About 53 Years Through Attorney Holder Dr. Pradeep Kumar Martin, R/o Martin Hospital Campus, Bastar Road, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Asad Khan S/o Mukhtar Khan Aged About 54 Years R/o Ratnabandha Chowk, Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 3 - The Rent Conrol Authority Dhamtari District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ----Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners : Mr. Dinesh Tiwari & Mohd. Azad Siddiqui, Advocates For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey and Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 03.07.2025 Per, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. 1. That the present petition is filed against order dated-11/05/2022 (ANNEXURE P-10) passed by the Respondent No.2 (Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur) whereby they have passed order without considering and appreciating the evidence taken before the Rent Control Authority, Dhamtari (CG) who has allowed the petition with direction for evicting the premises. Respondent No.1 failed to prove that he became the owner of said disputed premises on the basis of adverse possession and thereby the Respondent No.2 has drawn conclusion by exceeding jurisdiction while passing judgment on point of adverse possession. It is settled law that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the point of title elaborately as if it a civil Court. The Rent Controller has only to decide the bonafide of denial of title of land to the tenant in a Rent Control proceedings under the Rent Control Act, 1960. 3 2. The disputed double-storied shop at Dev-Shri Takies Road was originally rented to Mukhtar Khan (father of Respondent No.1) for a motor garage, with rent regularly to be paid. After his death, Respondent No.1 continued tenancy but unlawfully changed the use of the premises into a non-veg hotel, beauty parlor, and residence without the petitioner’s consent, violating the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011. Upon non-payment of rent despite repeated notices, the petitioner filed an eviction case, which was rightly allowed by the Rent Control Authority, Dhamtari on 07.12.2020. However, the Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur erroneously allowed the appeal by deciding the same on adverse possession, an issue beyond its jurisdiction under the Rent Act, which only permits adjudication on tenancy matters, not ownership or title disputes. 3. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for all the relevant records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal. 10.2 This Hon'ble court may kindly be please to set aside the judgment dated-11.05.2022ANNEXURE P- 12 passed by the Respondent No.2. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts & circumstances of case. 10.4 Cost of the petition also may be awarded. An affidavit in support of the writ petition is filed herewith.” 4 4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a lawful successor to nazul land Sheet No.20C, Land No.7/1, Plot No.27/1 (83 sq.m.), situated at Risaipara, Dhamtari, leased in the name of his grandmother Late Anandi Martin and renewed till 2040. A double- storied shop on this land was rented to Mukhtar Khan (father of Respondent No.1) for a motor garage, and after his death, Respondent No.1 continued the tenancy, paying monthly rent of ₹500. The petitioner’s father had filed Civil Suit No.06A/93 for eviction to construct a nursing home, but passed away during the process. Respondent No.1 illegally converted the garage into a non-veg hotel, beauty parlor, and residence without consent, violating the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, and stopped paying rent from 2017. After serving legal notice (Annexure P-1), the petitioner filed an eviction application (Annexure P-2) before the Rent Control Authority, Dhamtari. Respondent No.1 denied tenancy, claiming ownership by adverse possession. Despite clear evidence including admissions of landlord tenant relationship in earlier litigation, the Rent Controlling Authority allowed the eviction on 07.12.2020 (Annexure P-9). However, on appeal, the Rent Control Tribunal (R/2) wrongly exercised jurisdiction of a civil court by adjudicating title based on adverse possession and allowed the appeal on 11.05.2022 (Annexure P-10). Hence this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgment dated 11.05.2022 passed by the Respondent No.2 (Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur) is illegal, arbitrary, 5 and contrary to settled legal principles. Without appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal has wrongly exercised the jurisdiction of a civil court by adjudicating on title and adverse possession, the issues which fall outside the scope of its authority under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011. The Tribunal failed to consider vital documentary evidence, including the documents of Civil Suit No. 06A/93 filed by the petitioner’s father, where Respondent No.1’s father had categorically admitted tenancy. These documents (Annexure P-4), along with the electricity bill in petitioner’s father’s name, were wrongly discarded by both the Rent Control Authority (R/3) and the Tribunal (R/2), despite their relevance to establish landlord-tenant relationship. It is submitted that further, the Tribunal erroneously held that Respondent No.1 became the owner by adverse possession merely due to non- payment of rent and continuous possession for 18–19 years, ignoring that such findings can only be made by a competent civil court. The Tribunal also failed to consider that the cause of action arose in 2017 when Respondent No.1 stopped paying rent, leading to issuance of legal notice (Annexure P-1), which remained unreplied (Annexure P-3). Thus, the finding that no tenancy existed is contrary to law and facts. The Rent Control Authority’s order dated 07.12.2020 allowing eviction was proper and supported by evidence. The Tribunal, in reversing it, has acted beyond its statutory jurisdiction and committed a serious error of law. Therefore, the impugned appellate order is liable to be quashed. 6 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the appellate judgment dated 11.05.2022 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal (R/2) is just, legal, and does not warrant interference under writ jurisdiction. The petitioner has failed to establish a legally enforceable landlord-tenant relationship through admissible evidence. There exists no registered lease deed, rent receipts, or other contemporaneous documents confirming payment of rent by Respondent No.1 or his father Mukhtar Khan. The so-called admission in Civil Suit No.06A/93, relied upon by the petitioner, pertains to a suit which was dismissed long ago and never resulted in any conclusive finding. Moreover, the Rent Control Authority rightly disregarded these stale documents, which were not sufficient to prove tenancy, especially in light of consistent denial by Respondent No.1. It is further submitted that Respondent No.1 has been in uninterrupted possession of the disputed premises for over 18–19 years, openly and without any objection or demand for rent until 2017. There was no effective landlord-tenant relationship subsisting during this prolonged period. The Tribunal, in the absence of reliable proof of tenancy, correctly observed that such long, exclusive possession without interference could be considered in the context of denial of title. It is incorrect to suggest that the Tribunal adjudicated on title or ownership in a civil sense; rather, the Tribunal evaluated the bona fides of denial of tenancy as permitted under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011. Learned counsel further 7 submits that the findings are based on facts and evidence placed before the appellate authority and do not violate any principle of natural justice or statutory mandate. Hence, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 & 3 submits that the appellate order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal (Respondent No.2) dated 11.05.2022 was based on the material and arguments presented before it and does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or perversity. It is submitted that the Tribunal exercised its powers under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 and considered the issue of denial of tenancy by Respondent No.1. The Tribunal found that the petitioner failed to produce cogent, admissible evidence proving the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. In the absence of any registered lease deed, rent receipt, or undisputed proof of regular payment of rent, the Tribunal was justified in doubting the claim of tenancy. It is further submitted that the eviction case before the Rent Control Authority (R/3) was primarily based on oral assertions and documents which were either outdated or not legally sufficient to establish tenancy. The Tribunal noted the long possession of Respondent No.1 and the absence of rent payment for 18–19 years. The Tribunal’s observations about adverse possession were made in the limited context of the denial of tenancy, and not as a final adjudication of title, which the petitioner is free to pursue before a competent civil Court. Learned counsel further submits that the 8 powers under the Rent Control Act include examining the bona fide nature of denial of tenancy, and the Tribunal, having found that denial to be consistent with the long-standing conduct of Respondent No.1, cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily. The Rent Control Authorities are bound by the evidence produced before them, and in the present case, the petitioner’s failure to produce convincing and continuous documentation of tenancy was a key factor. Therefore, there is no legal infirmity or abuse of jurisdiction in the Tribunal’s order, and the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for both parties, considered their rival submissions, perused the evidence led by the parties and the record with utmost circumspection. 9. Upon perusal of the record, it appears that the Rent Control Authority failed to consider certain vital documents filed by the landlord. These documents include a written statement submitted in an earlier suit by the original tenant. In that written statement, the father of Respondent No. 1, namely Late Mukhtar Khan, clearly admitted that he was a tenant and was paying rent for the premises. He further stated that all future matters concerning the tenancy would be handled by his son, who was operating a garage in the said premises. When an enhancement of rent was proposed, he expressed his inability to pay the increased amount. This document constitutes a crucial piece of evidence in 9 determining the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. However, the Tribunal failed to take this document into consideration, despite the fact that it had been duly filed along with a list of documents on 19.06.2019, and a copy was also supplied to the respondent-tenant. 10. Furthermore, during his evidence, Petitioner No. 1 categorically stated that he had submitted documents pertaining to his ownership and the earlier suit involving the present petitioners (landlords) and the father of the respondent-tenant. Despite this, the Tribunal disregarded the aspect of tenancy dating back to the father of the respondent and only considered the absence of a tenancy agreement between the present respondent and the petitioners. It is pertinent to note that there is a clear admission by Late Mukhtar Khan, the father of the respondent, regarding the existence of tenancy, and this should have been duly considered by the Tribunal. 11. During the course of arguments, when this fact was brought to the attention of the counsel for the respondent, both parties agreed that the Rent Control Authority did not examine the aforesaid documents. The Authority had concluded that no landlord-tenant relationship existed between the parties, a finding that was subsequently upheld by the Rent Control Tribunal. In the interest of justice, the matter warrants remand to the concerned Rent Control Authority for a fresh decision. The Authority shall 10 consider the written statement filed in the previous suit by Late Mukhtar Khan, wherein he explicitly admitted being a tenant and stated that his son (the present respondent) would henceforth be managing the tenanted premises. 12. Considering the above facts, we are of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration. Accordingly, the orders dated 07.12.2020 and 11.05.2022 passed by the Rent Control Authority are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the concerned Rent Control Authority for a fresh decision on the eviction application filed by the present petitioners. The Authority shall consider and duly exhibit the written statement submitted by the petitioners and provide a fair opportunity of hearing to both parties. The matter shall be decided afresh in accordance with law within a stipulated time frame. 13. Given the age of the matter and its nature concerning eviction from the suit premises, the Authority is directed to dispose of the case within two months from the date of appearance of the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the concerned Rent Control Authority on 30th July 2025. 14. The Registry is directed to forthwith transmit the record along with a copy of this order. The Tribunal is expected to decide the matter within the prescribed period after affording both parties due opportunity of hearing and after considering the documents filed by the landlord. 11 15. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Vishakha