1 2025:CGHC:28859-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3272 of 2025 1 - Sanjay Dubey S/o Late Bhola Dubey Aged About 64 Years (Now) R/o Ward No. 6, Musalman Mouhalla Takhatpur Tahsil Takhatpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Kulwant Kaur Hoora W/o Prithvipal Singh Hoora Aged About 68 Years (Name Of The Respondent No. 1 Is Wrongly Mentioned As Phoolwant In Order Impugned) R/o Old Bus Stand Ward No. 9 Main Road Takhatpur Tahsil Takhatpur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Prithvipal Singh Hoora S/o Late Jaswant Singh Hoora Aged About 72 Years R/o Old Bus Stand Ward No. 9 Main Road Takhatpur Tahsil Takhatpur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate (Division Bench) Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Order on Board Per; Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge 30/06/2025 1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 01.05.2025 passed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal in Appeal No. 45-A/2024, whereby the Tribunal affirmed the order of the Rent Control Officer, Bilaspur Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 District, Bilaspur (C.G.), allowing the application filed by the respondents seeking vacant possession of the premises and recovery of arrears of rent. 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that on 20.01.2023, the petitioner entered into a valid rent agreement with respondent No.1 in respect of a property situated at Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the purpose of operating an auto parts business. As per the terms of the agreement, the monthly rent was fixed at 9,150/-, and the petitioner ₹ paid an advance rent for eleven months in addition to a sum of 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) as a refundable security deposit. ₹ Despite the subsistence of the rent agreement, the respondent sent a legal notice dated 01.03.2023 to the petitioner, seeking vacation of the premises and alleging non-payment of rent. The petitioner, through legal counsel, issued a detailed reply on 03.03.2023, denying all allegations made in the said notice. Subsequently, on 11.07.2023, the respondents filed an application before the Rent Control Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.), seeking recovery of alleged arrears of rent and vacant possession of the tenanted premises. After following the due process of law, the Rent Control Officer, Bilaspur, passed an order in favour of the respondents, directing the petitioner to vacate the premises. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which came to be dismissed by the Appellate Authority by order dated 01.05.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the impugned order dated 01.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal in Appeal No. 45-A/2024, affirming the order of the 3 Rent Control Officer, Bilaspur, is ex facie bad in law, perverse on the face of the record, and liable to be set aside in the interest of justice and equity. It is an admitted and undisputed position as emerging from the rent agreement dated 20.01.2023, that the petitioner had paid in advance a sum equivalent to eleven months’ rent along with a security deposit of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the respondents at the time of execution of the said agreement. This specific stipulation, being part of a duly executed written contract between the parties, leaves no room for any subsequent claim of arrears of rent within the first eleven months of the tenancy. Despite this, both the learned authorities below, in a manifestly erroneous and mechanical manner, have passed orders directing recovery of rent for a period of seventeen months, which is clearly in conflict with the terms of the binding agreement and is, therefore, unsustainable in law. It is a settled proposition of law that documentary evidence prevails over oral assertions. In the present case, both parties have relied upon the written rent agreement dated 20.01.2023. However, the Courts below have failed to appreciate the terms of said agreement in their true letter and spirit. The findings recorded by the authorities, while relying on the said agreement solely in favour of the respondents, without considering the clear clause regarding advance rent and security deposit paid by the petitioner, reflects a gross misreading of the document and selective application of evidence, which renders the orders liable to be interfered with. It is also pertinent to submit that notwithstanding the execution of the rent agreement on 20.01.2023, the respondents proceeded to issue a legal notice for recovery of rent as early as 01.03.2023, i.e., barely 40 days from the date of agreement, without acknowledging or taking into 4 account the advance rent already received. Thereafter, the respondents approached the Rent Control Officer by filing the eviction application on 11.07.2023. This sequence of events strongly indicates a malafide intention on the part of the respondents and an abuse of the legal process to unjustly enrich themselves at the cost of the petitioner. The petitioner has been a longstanding tenant, having been in continuous possession and regular payment of rent in respect of the suit property for over 40 years. It was in this background that the respondents, recognising the bonafide conduct of the petitioner, executed a fresh rent agreement on 20.01.2023. The said factual backdrop has been completely ignored by both the Courts below, who have instead proceeded on a hyper-technical approach, without appreciating the conduct and long-standing relationship between the parties. The learned Appellate Tribunal has further failed to examine the issue of limitation. The application filed by the respondents before the Rent Control Officer was barred by limitation and ought to have been dismissed at the threshold. The non-consideration of this legal bar by both the courts below vitiates the entire proceedings and renders the impugned orders null and void. In light of the above submissions, it is most prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 01.05.2025 (Annexure P- 1) as well as the order passed by the Rent Control Officer. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the documents enclosed along with the writ petition. 5. From perusal of the orders passed by both authorities below, it is evident that due process was followed. The petitioner was served 5 notice, given adequate opportunity to file a reply, and adduce evidence. The existence of a landlord-tenant relationship stands admitted and undisputed. The agreement dated 20.01.2023 explicitly sets forth the obligations of both parties, including timely payment of rent. It has been rightly observed by the authorities that once the petitioner defaulted in fulfilling his obligations under the agreement, especially in regard to rent payment, the respondents were well within their rights to seek eviction and arrears. Both the Rent Control Officer and the Rent Control Tribunal have passed well-reasoned and speaking orders after considering the material on record, including the written agreement and conduct of the parties. This Court finds no legal infirmity or perversity warranting interference under writ jurisdiction. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prayes for some time to vacate the premises, stating that the rainy season is ongoing and some reasonable period may be granted to make alternative arrangements. 7. Considering the said request, and in the interest of equity and fairness, while dismissing this writ petition, the petitioner is granted two months' time from the date of this order to vacate the premises in question, subject to strict compliance with the following conditions: • The petitioner shall deposit the arrears of rent as directed by the Rent Control Authority • The respondent-landlords shall, upon vacation of the premises, return the security deposit of 2,00,000/- as per ₹ the agreement dated 20.01.2023, after adjusting any lawful dues, if any. • It is made clear that no further time shall be granted. Failure to comply with these directions shall entitle the 6 respondents to initiate appropriate proceedings for enforcement of eviction order. 8. Further, the petitioner / tenant is directed to file an affidavit in respect of compliance of this order before the RCA, Bilaspur within a week. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajni Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Shayna