1 2025:CGHC:57721-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2519 of 2025 1 - M/s Manohar Hardware Mart (Formerly Known As M/s Ferumal And Sons), Through Sanchalak Manohar Motwani, At Dadabaadi Parisar, M.G. Road, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, C.G. 2 - Manohar Motwani S/o Lt. Parmanand Motwani Aged About 68 Years Sanchalak M/s Manohar Hardware Mart, At Dadabaadi Parisar, M.G. Road, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, C.G. ... Petitioner versus Shri Rishabh Dev Mandir Trust Through Acting President And Trustee Shri Abhay Bhansali, At Rishabh Dev Jain Mandir, Sadar Bazar, Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Vinay Nagdev, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Aditi Diwan, Advocate. Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey, J. Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. Order on Board Per, Rajani Dubey , Judge 27.11.2025 Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 1. Heard on admission. 2. The petition being arguable is admitted for hearing. 3. With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally. 4. The petitioners herein had preferred an appeal under Section 13 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (for brevity “Act of 2011”) before the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, C.G., questioning the order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the Rent Controller, Raipur, directing the petitioner to handover the vacant possession of the shop/warehouse located in the premises of Dada Badi M.G. Road, Raipur (C.G.). The said appeal was barred by limitation of 57 days and the Tribunal has dismissed the application holding that sufficient cause has not been shown for each day delay in filing the appeal and consequently the appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 27.02.2025 against which the instant writ petition has been filed. 5. Mr. Vinay Nagdev, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the learned Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the petitioners’ application for condonation of delay and consequently rejecting the appeal of the petitioners as the counsel who was appearing before the Rent Controller did not inform about granting of the application for eviction filed by the landlord on 25.04.2024 and, as such, the delay ought to have been condoned in light of the similar order passed by this Court in WPC No. 2547 of 2025. 6. Ms. Aditi Diwan, learned counsel for the respondent, would support impugned order passed by the Tribunal as well as the order of the Rent Controller and oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners. He would further submit that the delay was deliberately 3 occurred in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, therefore, the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein–above and perused the records meticulously. 8. This Court has observed vide order dated 01.08.2025 in the similar matter passed in WPC No. 2547 of 2025 by this court in paras 8, 9, 10 & 11 as under:- 8. Admittedly, the application for eviction was granted by the Rent Controller on 19.04.2024 in favour of the landlord /respondent herein against which the petitioners/tenants herein preferred the appeal which was barred by 66 days for the reason assigned by learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the counsel who was appearing before the Rent Controller did not inform the petitioners herein about granting of the application of the respondent herein. However, the learned Rent Control Tribunal has held that the each day delay has not been explained by the petitioner herein for not filing the appeal right in time against the order of the Rent Controller though the application for condonation of delay supported by the affidavit. 9. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the pertinent decisions relating to the issue of the present case. In the matter of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy 1 the Supreme Court has held that there is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate and the 1 (1998) 7 SCC 123 4 words “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and observed as under:- “12. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari2 and State of W.B. v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality3 13. It must be remembered that in every case of delay, there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time, then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning the delay, the 2 AIR 1969 SC 575 : (1969) 1 SCR 1006 3 (1972) 1 SCC 366 : AIR 1972 SC 749 5 court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a loser and he too would have incurred quite large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant, the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss.” 10. In light of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, the cause shown by the petitioners herein that the counsel who was appearing before the Rent Controller did not inform the petitioner about granting of the application and directing for eviction to the petitioner vide order dated 19.04.2024,therefore, the petitioner could not prefer the appeal within the time would constitute “sufficient cause” as the tenant/ petitioners herein who has been directed to vacate the suit premises would not gain the same by delay in filing of the appeal. 11. In that view of the matter, the delay of 66 days in filing the appeal before the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, is condoned and hereby the impugned order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, for hearing and deciding the 6 appeal on merits after hearing both the parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of thisorder. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 11th of August, 2025 and no further notice is required.” 9. In the light of above, the delay of 57 days in filing the appeal before the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, is condoned and hereby the impugned order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, for deciding the appeal on merits after hearing both the parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 1st of December, 2025 and no further notice is required. SD/- SD/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge AMIT PATEL