1 2025:CGHC:35415 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2704 of 2019 1 - Raj Kumar S/o Leelaram Jadwani Aged About 49 Years Owner Of Shop No. 19, Vijeta Complex, Shastri Bazar, Distric Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Commissioner , Chhattisgarh Excise Deapartment Abkari Bhawan, Labhandi, Chokra Nala, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited Through Managing Director, Abkari, Bhawan, Labhandi Chokra Nala, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Munnicipal Corporation Through Commissioner, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Pramod Shrivastava, Dy.G.A. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Malay Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Shri Pankaj Agrawal and Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocates. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 23.07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “i. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the direction issued by the respondent no. 3 dated 02.11.2018 (Annexure P/1). ii. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 to pay the monthly rent as agreed with SMT NIRMALA RAO 2 the petitioner from May 2017 to till date with an interest of 15% р.а. iii. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare that the conduct of the respondent no. 3 in directing the respondent no. 2 not to pay any rent for the subjected shop to any person; as illegal and bad in law. iv. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to prohibit the respondent no. 3 to not to issue any kind of direction or interfere with the contractual relations agreed between the petitioner and respondent no.2. v. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble court deems fit, in the facts and circumstances may also be granted favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Shop No.19, situated at Vijeta Complex, Raipur, was allotted to the petitioner by the Municipal Corporation, Raipur, in the year 2008. She would contend that the order of allotment was cancelled by the Municipal Corporation vide order dated 1.4.2010, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing WPC No. 2605 of 2010, wherein an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner. She would further contend that the order of cancellation was set aside vide order dated 9.11.2017, and a direction was issued to the Municipal Corporation to decide the matter afresh after affording a due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is also contended that the Municipal Corporation/respondent No.3 again cancelled the allotment vide order dated 28.2.2019. She would further submit that Shop No.19 was given on rent to respondent No.2 on 1.4.2017, and respondent No.2 deposited the rent amount of Rs.1,05,000/- per month with the Municipal Corporation. However, the petitioner received the rent for April, 2017 only. She would also submit 3 that the petitioner is entitled to receive arrears of rent from May 2017 till February, 2019. She would argue that till 28.2.2019, rightly or wrongly, the petitioner was the title holder of Shop No. 19; therefore, he is entitled to get arrears of rent. It is also argued that since the rent amount has been deposited by respondent No.2 with respondent No.3, respondent No.3 may be directed to make payment. 3. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. They would submit that the petitioner has not produced the rent agreement entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.2 for the period from April, 2017 till February, 2018. They would further submit that the petitioner has only placed on record one agreement entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.2 pertaining to the year 2018-19. However, it is also submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to arrears of rent from May, 2017 to February, 2019 in the absence of relevant documents. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 5. It appears that Shop No.19, Vijeta Complex, Raipur, was allotted to the petitioner in the year 2008. The said allotment was cancelled by respondent No.3 vide order dated 1.4.2010. The effect and operation of the cancellation order were stayed by this Court in WPC No.2605 of 2010. Subsequently, the cancellation order was quashed vide order dated 9.11.2017. Respondent No.3 again cancelled the allotment order vide order dated 28.2.2019. The petitioner has claimed arrears of rent for the period from May, 2017 to February 2019. It is not in dispute that, 4 by virtue of the interim order, the petitioner remained in possession of Shop No.19 and the initial cancellation order dated 1.4.2010 was ultimately quashed. Hence, the petitioner had a legal right over the said shop during that period. 6. With regard to the rent agreement entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.2, the petitioner has placed on record a notice inviting tender and an agreement pertaining to the year 2018-19. If the petitioner produces sufficient proof with regard to the rent agreement for the relevant period before respondent No. 3, the authority concerned shall make the payment of arrears of rent to the petitioner within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent No.3 would be at liberty to adjust the amount of premium against arrears of rent payable to the petitioner. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is disposed of. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi