1 2025:CGHC:25311-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No.440 of 2025 1 - Maya Lodge, M.G. Road, Raipur, Through Ramanuj Purohit, Aged About 67 Years, S/o Late Deenmani Shankar Purohit R/o Mahatma Gandhi Road, Raipur, Tehsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) …………………. (Non - Applicant) Petitioner versus 1 - Rakesh Kashyap S/o Late Ramesh Bahadur Kashyap Aged About 45 Years 2 - Smt. Asha Kashyap W/o Late Ramesh Bahadur Kashyap Aged About 70 Years Both R/o 10, Hanuman Nagar Society, Near Kalibadi Chowk, Raipur, Tehsil and District - Raipur (C.G.)..................(Applicant) Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinay Nagdev, Advocate Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Judgment on Board 18.06.2025 Per Rajani Dubey J. Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA 2 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter "the Tribunal") in Appeal No.38-A/2024, by which the first appeal preferred by the petitioner u/s 13 of the Rent Control Act, 2011, arising out of the order dated 27.06.2024 passed by Rent Control Authority, Raipur (C.G) in Case No.12-90(6) of the Year 2018-19, was rejected and petitioner was directed to vacate the disputed property and provide possession of the same to the respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents own the building situated at MG Road Raipur, except the shops situated on the ground floor and the petitioner is the tenant in the remaining portion. The father of the respondent No.1 and husband of respondent No.2 Shri Ramesh Bahadur Kashyap died on 27.12.2017. Thus, the respondents are the heirs of late Ramesh Bahadur Kashyap. The monthly rent of the disputed rented premises was Rs.1155/- per month and the petitioner firm paid Rs. 13,660/- to father of the respondents late Shri Ramesh Bahadur Kashyap through cheque No.036149 dated 27.03.2015 for the monthly rents up to March 2015, but the petitioner firm did not pay the rent amount to the respondents since April 2015. Therefore, the applicants' father late Shri Ramesh Bahadur Kashyap sent a 6-month legal notice dated 03.10.2018, but the petitioner did not respondent to the notice and did not pay the rent amount, upon which the respondents preferred application 3 for eviction of the petitioner firm from the disputed property before the learned Rent Control Authority, Raipur (C.G), which was allowed and the petitioner firm was directed to evict from the suit property vide order dated 27.06.2024. Being aggrieved by the order dated 27.06.2024, the petitioner preferred first appeal u/s 13 of the Rent Control Act, 2011 before the learned Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur (C.G), which has been dismissed vide order dated 07.04.2025. Hence the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders passed by the Rent Control Authority as well as Rent Control Tribunal are bad, illegal and contrary to the settled principles of law. The respondents have failed to establish the existence of any tenancy/landlord agreement between the parties and even no landlord tenant relationship has been established by the respondents between the petitioner and them with respect to the disputed property, but the same was not considered by the learned Rent Control Authority and the learned Rent Control Tribunal has also committed error in rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Therefore, both the orders are liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by this Court in the matter of Onkar Prasad Sajwani vs Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal and others, reported in 2024 SCC Online Chh 8631 and Rammurty Agrawal vs 4 Santosh Agrawal, passed in WPC No.4363/2022 vide judgment dated 28.06.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned orders passed by the learned Rent Control Authority as well as Rent Control Tribunal and submits that the learned Rent Control Authority as well as the learned Rent Control Tribunal have rightly rejected the case of the petitioner based on the evidence available on record. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the orders of the learned Rent Control Authority and the learned Tribunal that the petitioner Maya Lodge is the tenant of the respondents. The learned Tribunal gave a categorical finding that there was landlord tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondents and the suit premises was given on rent to the father of Ramanuj Purohit namely late Deenmani Shankar prior to 50-55 years by the father of the respondents namely Ramesh Bahadur Kashyap and after death of Deenmani Shankar, his legal heirs Ramanuj Purohit and his wife were maintaining Maya Lodge. The learned Tribunal also found in paras 6 & 7 that the petitioner paid rent through cheque. The learned Rent Control Authority after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence directed the petitioner/tenant to vacate 5 the suit premises and pay arrears of rent @ Rs.1155/- per month since January, 2020 to till handing over the possession. The learned Tribunal also considered all grounds of petitioner and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and confirmed the order passed by the Rent Control Authority. 7. The finding of fact recorded by the learned Rent Control Authority as also by the learned Tribunal being based on the proper appreciation of the material available on record do not appear to be at fault making this Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. The petition is without any merit and is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. The petitioner is directed to vacate the suit premises on or before 31st of August, 2025. 9. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Nirala