1 2025:CGHC:59895-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6444 of 2025 1 - Ramesh Arya S/o Shri Chandra Arya Aged About 47 Years R/o Purana Sarkanda Lodhipara Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Anguri Bai (Dead) W/o Om Prakash Late Om Prakash Agrawal Om Prakash Agrawal (Dead) S/o Late Matadeen Agrawal Through Lr's 1.1 - Shri Hemant Agrawal S/o Late Om Prakash Agrawal Aged About 47 Years R/o Sarkanda, Lodhipara, Bilaspur, Tehsil, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate (Division Bench) Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board Per; Rajani Dubey, Judge 10/12/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the impugned order dated 30.10.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, whereby his appeal Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 was dismissed on the ground of delay, thereby affirming the order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the Rent Controller, Bilaspur, directing eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: “i) It is therefore prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the instant case. ii) That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set- aside/quash the impugned order dated 30.10.2025 (Annexure P/1) as well as order dated 30.05.2024 passed by Rent Controller, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) iii) Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner iv) That, any other relief, which the petitioner is entitled and this Hon'ble court deems it fit may kindly, be granted to the petitioner.” 2. Facts of the case, as projected in this petition, are that the petitioner is a poor businessman who has been running a small shop in the suit premises on rent for several years, earning his livelihood through this business. To maintain and operate the shop, he has even taken financial assistance from the bank. The shop premises, measuring 13x10 ft., is situated at Old Sarkanda, Lodhipara, Bilaspur (C.G.), and has long been the only source of sustenance for the petitioner and his family. The original landlady of the premises was Late Smt. Anguri Bai, who had let out the 3 accommodation to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 1500/-. According to the respondent-landlady, a legal notice dated 25.01.2021 was issued to the petitioner, directing him to vacate the premises within six months. Upon his refusal, she filed an eviction application before the Rent Controller, Bilaspur, on 11.08.2021. The petitioner filed his reply, admitting the tenancy but contending that the landlady possessed other suitable accommodations that could meet her alleged requirement. During the pendency of the eviction proceedings, Anguri Bai passed away, and her legal heirs, husband Omprakash Agrawal and son Hemant Agrawal, were substituted in the record. The Rent Controller, Bilaspur, vide order dated 30.05.2024, allowed the eviction application. It was held that the petitioner was a tenant of Late Anguri Bai on a monthly rent of Rs. 1500/- and had been duly served with six months’ notice as required under Section 12(2) read with sub-para (h) of Sr. No. 11 of Schedule II of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011. The authority further observed that the mere existence of other accommodations available with the landlady could not defeat her claim for eviction under the statutory provisions. Thus, eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises was ordered. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal along with an application for condonation of delay. The appeal was registered and notice was duly served upon the respondents. The petitioner explained that 4 the delay occurred due to his inability to appear on the hearing date owing to high blood pressure, which prevented him from communicating the date to his counsel. He claimed that he came to know about the dismissal of the original appeal for non- appearance only on 16.06.2025 when he had attended the Tribunal in connection with other related matters. He thereafter filed the restoration application immediately. However, the Tribunal, after considering the submissions, vide order dated 30.10.2025, rejected the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal held that the petitioner’s explanation of not informing his counsel due to high blood pressure did not appear bona fide. It further observed that although the petitioner learned of the dismissal on 16.06.2025, he filed the restoration application only on 15.07.2025 without offering a day-to-day explanation for the delay. The Tribunal concluded that the delay was deliberate and not satisfactorily explained, and therefore refused to condone it. The impugned order (Annexure P/1) is alleged to be illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, and contrary to settled principles of law, leading to the filing of the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the authorities below have committed a grave error of law in passing the impugned orders without properly considering and appreciating the statutory provisions governing eviction under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011. It is argued that the orders suffer from 5 non-application of mind and failure to evaluate the material placed on record by the petitioner, thereby rendering the findings unsustainable. It is further submitted that the authorities below have unjustifiably granted an order of eviction in favour of the respondent by recording findings that are perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. Despite noting that the respondent- landlady has several other accommodations available in her possession suitable for fulfilling the alleged bona fide requirement of her son, the Rent Controller still allowed the eviction application. Such an approach is impermissible in law and contrary to the very scheme of the Act, which mandates strict scrutiny of bona fide need. Accordingly, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Learned counsel submits that both the Rent Controller and the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the detailed reply filed by the petitioner. In the reply, the petitioner had specifically stated that the shop premises are situated on land comprising Khasra Nos. 1051/1/J, 1091/1/Dh, 1095/1, 1095/2, and 1096/2, yet the respondent has not disclosed on which specific Khasra number the suit shop stands. In absence of this essential detail, the petitioner had asserted that the eviction application was vague and defective. It was further pleaded that the respondent had never genuinely sought vacating of the premises and had instead abused and threatened the petitioner and her husband when the matter was discussed. These factual assertions, though specifically raised, were ignored by both authorities, thereby 6 vitiating the orders. It is also submitted that the authorities below overlooked the fact that the respondent has been regularly receiving the agreed monthly rent from the petitioner and possesses several other commercial shops in prime locations of Bilaspur. Thus, the respondent clearly does not require the suit shop for any alleged bona fide purpose. It is argued that the respondent has not demonstrated any valid cause of action for seeking eviction, and in absence of such cause of action, the eviction proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction. Consequently, the petitioner submits that the impugned orders passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Tribunal are arbitrary, illegal, contrary to record and deserve to be quashed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, particularly the impugned order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, this Court finds that the Tribunal has dismissed the petitioner’s appeal solely on the ground of delay of one month in filing the restoration application. The Tribunal held that the explanation offered by the appellant/petitioner, his inability to appear before the Tribunal on the relevant date due to high blood pressure and the consequent failure to inform his counsel, was not bona fide, and therefore declined to condone the delay. 6. It is evident from the impugned order that the Tribunal did not examine the matter on merits and proceeded to dismiss the 7 appeal only on the technical ground of delay. In the considered opinion of this Court, such rejection of the appeal merely on account of a delay of one month, without adopting a liberal approach as mandated by settled principles governing condonation of delay, warrants reconsideration. The dispute pertains to eviction of a tenant from commercial premises which constitutes his sole source of livelihood, and therefore, denial of an opportunity to contest the matter on merits would cause grave prejudice. The Tribunal was required to adopt a justice-oriented approach, particularly when the delay was not inordinate and when the petitioner had offered a plausible explanation for his non-appearance on the relevant date. The appellate remedy, being a statutory right, ought not to have been foreclosed on hyper-technical grounds. 7. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the delay of one month in filing the restoration application is hereby condoned, subject to the condition that the petitioner/tenant shall deposit the admitted rent, before the Tribunal within two weeks from today. Upon such compliance, the Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, is directed to restore the appeal to its original number and decide the same on merits, strictly in accordance with law, within an outer limit of one month. 8. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 05.01.2026, from which date the period of one month for disposal 8 shall be reckoned. 9. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajni Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Shayna