2025:CGHC:3290-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2928 of 2023 1 - Deenbandhu Panigrahi S/o- Shri. Laxminath Panigrahi, Aged About 63 Years R/o Anupam Chowk, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Rent Control Officer, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Ruby Singh, W/o Shri. Ranjit Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o At Anupam Chowk, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ranjit Singh S/o Shri. Ram Kishore Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o At Anupam Chowk, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 4 - Naib Tahsildar, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For petitioner : Mr. Ramsajiwan, Advocate For Respondents No. 2 and 3 : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate For State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Government Advocate DB: Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey and Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas ORDER ON BOARD 20.01.2025 Per, Narendra Kumar Vyas , Judge 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the order dated 06.02.2023 passed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur in Appeal No. 69-A/2021 by which the learned Tribunal has set aside the order dated 13.07.2020 passed by the Rent Control Authority, Jagdalpur in Revenue Case No. 09/A-90(7)/2017-2018 and remanded back the matter to the Rent Control Officer to decide the matter afresh. 2. The facts in brief as projected from the record are that the petitioner is the landlord of house Sheet No. 47, Plot No. 38/4 situated at Anupam Chowk, Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay Ward, Tahsil – Jagdalpur. He has constructed two rooms and bathroom on first floor wherein the respondents No. 2 and 3 were residing as tenants as per the rent agreement dated 05.08.2016 (Hereinafter, said first floor house is referred to as suit house). During existence of tenancy the respondents No. 2 and 3 had neither paid the rent nor vacated the house. Therefore, he filed an application before the Rent Controlling Authority, Jagdalpur for eviction from the suit house and recovery of remaining rent to the tune of Rs. 96000/- and from 14.08.2018 the mesne profit of Rs. 200/- per day which was registered as case No. 9A-90(7)- 2017-18. 3. The Rent Controlling Authority issued notices to respondents No. 2 and 3. On behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 Vakalatnama was filed by their counsel on 07.08.2019. The matter was taken up on 15.05.2020 which was adjourned due to COVID Pendamic and the notice which was issued for appearance of the respondents returned unserved, as such, again notices were issued to them for appearance on 01.07.2020 which was returned with endorsement that the notice to respondent No. 3 remained unserved on the count that he was out of station whereas notice was served upon respondent No. 2. Despite this, no appearance was made on behalf of respondent No. 2. As such, the Rent Controlling Authority proceeded ex-parte against the respondents and thereafter, order dated 13.07.2020 was passed directing eviction of the tenant from the suit house and also directed the tenant to pay Rs. 96000/- towards outstanding rent and Rs. 200/- mesne profit per day from 14.08.2018. Pursuant to the said order, respondent No. 4/ Naib Tehsildar broke open the lock and handed over the possession of the suit house to the petitioner on 20.11.2020. 4. Being aggrieved with the order dated 13.07.2020 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, the respondents No. 2 and 3 preferred WP(227) No. 481/2020 before this Court and the learned Single Bench of this Court vide its order dated 10.02.2021 disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to the respondents No. 2 and 3 to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal. Thereafter, respondents No. 2 and 3 preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur on 22.02.2021. Learned Tribunal vide the impugned judgment dated 06.02.2023 allowed the appeal filed by respondents No. 2 and 3, and remanded back the matter to the Rent Control Authority to decide the matter afresh on the count that the order has been passed during COVID Pendamic without duly serving notice to the respondents. Page 4 of 6 Being aggrieved with this judgment, the petitioner has filed present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the judgment of the learned Tribunal is perverse, erroneous and bad in law. He would further submit that the rent agreement was executed only for 11 months which has expired on 30.06.2017 and the vacant possession of the suit house has already been handed over to him and the respondents No. 2 and 3 are already residing as tenants somewhere else, therefore, no fruitful purpose will be achieved in remanding the matter, therefore, would pray for quashing the impugned order and allowing the writ petition. 6. He would further submit that the respondents No. 2 and 3 have stopped paying rent from September, 2016 and he has received vacant possession of the suit house on 20.11.2020, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get arrears of rent for 4 years and 4 months amounting to Rs. 2,08,000/- at the rate Rs. 4000/- p.m. therefore, respondents No. 2 and 3 may kindly be directed to pay the arrears of rent with interest till to date. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3 would submit that the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal is legal, justified and does not warrant interference by this Court as no opportunity of hearing has been provided to the respondents No. 2 and 3. During the COVID Pendamic they were residing at Noida therefore, notices were not served upon them. They would further submit that since the vacant possession has already been handed over to the petitioner and the rent agreement was valid only for 11 months, the petitioner is not entitled to get any amount after expiring of 11 months. The order passed by the learned Trial Court for payment of mesne profits to the tune of Rs. 200/- per day from 14.08.2018 is arbitrary and is on higher side. He would further submit that the Rent Controlling Authority has passed ex-parte order against them during COVID Pandemic, therefore, the same has rightly been quashed by the learned Tribunal which does not warrant interference by this Court and would pray for dismissing the present writ petition. 8. From the above factual matrix the point to be determined by this Court is whether the learned Tribunal was justified in remitting the matter to the Rent Controlling Authority with a direction to decide afresh? 9. The record of the case clearly demonstrates that the notice was duly served upon the respondents for appearance on 07.08.2019 and the counsel has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondents No. 2 and 3, despite that they have not entered appearance and filed pleadings to contest the case which clearly demonstrates that they were negligent in participating in the proceedings. As such, subsequent non-service of notice due to COVID Pendamic for their absence can not be condoned. The learned Rent Controlling Authority while proceeding ex-parte against respondents No. 2 and 3 has recorded its finding that respondents No. 2 and 3 have entered appearance through their counsel by filing Vakalatnama on 07.08.2019 and time was granted to them to submit written statement which was not availed by them. Thereafter, another notice was issued to the respondents wherein it has been mentioned that respondent No. 3 was out of station but notice was duly served upon respondent No. 2 despite service of notice they failed to appear therefore, ex-parte proceeding was conducted against them. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for petitioner’s evidence which clearly demonstrates that sufficient opportunity was granted to the respondents No. 2 and 3 and same has not been availed by them. The learned Tribunal without rhyme and reason, without considering the records of the case and conduct of the respondents, has set aside the ex-parte order which is perverse and contrary to the record. As such, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside by this Court. 10. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal dated 06.02.2023 is set aside and the order dated 13.07.2020 passed by the Rent Control Officer, Jagdalpur is restored. Sd/- Sd/-d/- ( Rajani Dubey) (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE JUDGE Deshmukh KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Digitally signed by KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Date: 2025.03.04 16:39:34 +0530