1 2025:CGHC:18549-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2010 of 2025 1 - Firm Bed Sheet House Proprietor Shri Dilip Kumar Jain, S/o Shri Seeta Ram Jain, Aged About 55 Years, R/o J - 87, Thok Kapda Market, Pandri, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Dilip Kumar Jain S/o Shri Seeta Ram Jain Aged About 55 Years R/o J - 87, Thok Kapda Market, Pandri, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus Smt. Satwant Kaur Saluja W/o Shri Inderjeet Singh Saluja Aged About 60 Years R/o Saluja Mention, Govind Nagar, Pandri, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Through Her Power Of Attorney Holder Inderjeet Singh Saluja, Aged About 63 Years, S/o Shri Jashwant Singh Saluja, R/o Saluja Mention, Govind Nagar, Pandri, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioners : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 24.04.2025 Per Sachin Singh Rajput, J. 1) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 13.02.2025 Annexure P/1 passed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Misc. Appeal No. 02/2024 whereby the learned Tribunal has rejected the Misc. appeal field by the petitioners and affirmed the order dated 24.112023 Annexure P/2 passed by the Rent Control Authority, Raipur, C.G. in Case No. 64-90/6/2020-21. 2) Facts of the case in a nutshell is that the respondent No.1 had filed the application Under Section 12(2) Schedule 2 Para 11(A) & (J) of the Rent Control Act, 2011 against the petitioners seeking relief of delivery of vacant possession and balance of rent in respect of double story shop No. J-87 on the HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.04.28 14:46:27 +0530 2 ground that the petitioners have not paid the rent regularly from January, 2020. On the basis of that the matter was registered as a suit No. 64-90/6/2020-21. The petitioners had filed their reply to the application and denied the contention. During pendency of the said case, the petitioners had filed the application for objection stating that the original applicant has not produced her evidence Under Order 18 Rule 04 of C.P.C. but the affidavit under Order 18 Rule 04 of C.P.C. has been filed by her Power of Attorney Holder namely Inderjeet Singh Saluja as Applicant. The learned Rent Control Authority without properly appreciating the law, dismissed the objection filed by the petitioners on the ground that the Power of Attorney Holder is the husband of the original Applicant, therefore, he knows about the dispute in question vide order dated 24.11.2023. Against the order dated 24.11.2023, the petitioners filed Misc. Appeal No. 02/2024 before the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, who vide its order dated 13.02.2025 (Ann P-1) rejected the appeal by affirming the order dated 24.11.2023 (Ann P-2), passed by the Rent Control Authority, Raipur. The impugned order is completely illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law. Hence this petition. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent had filed an application under Section 12(2) Schedule 2 Para 11(A) & (J) of the Rent Control Act, 2011 against the petitioner for eviction. He submits that respondent is the owner of the two double storey shop No. J-87 situated at wholesale cloth market- pandri, Raipur. He further submits that in the ground floor of the said shop area about 750 square ft. was given on rent by the husband of the respondent to the petitioners. Petitioner No. 2 is the proprietor of petitioner No.1 and engaged in the business of selling bed-sheet and pillow etc. in the said shop. He submits that in the application so filed, the respondent prayed for eviction of the petitioners from the said shop and also prayed for 3 arrears of rent and damages. He submits that reply of the application filed by the petitioners. He further sbumits that he landlord and tenant relationship was admitted and the rent was admitted to Rs.36,000/- per month. He submits that the petitioners filed an objection that in the application respondent is the original applicant and the applicant has submitted her affidavit through power of attorney holder namely Inderjeet Singh Saluja on 12.01.2023 and the evidence is presented through a power of attorney of holder and her husband i.e. Inderjeet Singh Saluja is not competent give evidence in place of the respondent, therefore, a prayer was made the evidence of the power of attorney of the respondent is not admissible. Therefore, a direction may be issued to the respondent to present the evidence of the original party i.e. respondent. The application was resisted by the respondent. He further submits that learned Rent Controller vide its order dated 24.11.2023 Annexure P/2 dismissed the application which was affirmed in the Misc. appeal No. 02/2024 by the Rent Controller. He submits that the evidence of the respondent cannot be taken by the Rent Controller through her power of attorney holder. He submits that the learned Rent Controller and learned Rent Tribunal have committed an error in rejecting the application of the petitioners. Therefore, this writ petition may be admitted for hearing. 4) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record appended with the writ petition. 5) It is not in dispute that the petitioners are the tenant of suit property. An application for eviction of the suit property along with the arrears of rent and another relief has been filed by the respondent under the provisions of under Section 12(2) Schedule 2 Para 11(A) & (J) of the Rent Control Act, 2011 and reply to that has also been filed. An objection was raised by the petitioners that affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 was filed by the power of attorney holder of 4 the respondent which cannot taken as evidence. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the application holding that the affidavit has been filed by the husband of the respondent at the strength of general power of attorney executed in her favour. As per condition No. 2, the respondent has given right to the power of attorney holder to file reply, affidavit and record evidence. Therefore looking to this aspect, the application was rejected. This order is also been affirmed by the learned Rent Controller. 6) The effect of recording of evidence by a power of attorney holder could be considered by learned Rent Controller while deciding the application for eviction itself. The respondent may examined herself as witness if so desires. At this stage this Court is not inclined to give any finding that the evidence in form of affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC on behalf of power of attorney holder of the respondent is no admissible in evidence which as stated above in the domain of learned Rent Controller. 7) In the result, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- 8) (Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge H. Ansari