1 2025:CGHC:59894-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1242 of 2025 1 - Janki Bai W/o Late Harinarayan @ Hari Ram Dhruv Aged About 60 Years R/o Ward No. 49 Shyam Nagar Telibandha, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Mithlesh Kumar Dhruv S/o Late Harinarayan @ Hari Ram Dhruv Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No. 49 Shyam Nagar Telibandha, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Kamlesh Kumar Dhruv S/o Late Harinarayan @ Hari Ram Dhruv Aged About 33 Years R/o Ward No. 49 Shyam Nagar Telibandha, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Yogesh Kumar Dhruv S/o Late Harinarayan @ Hari Ram Dhruv Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 49 Shyam Nagar Telibandha, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Sunil Kumar Natthani S/o Late Sohan Lal Natthani Aged About 55 Years R/o Sadar Bazar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. F. S. Khare, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate (Division Bench) Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board Per; Rajani Dubey, Judge Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 10/12/2025 1. This petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 04.11.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, in M.J.C. No. 02/2025, whereby the Tribunal has rejected the petitioner’s application filed under Section 10(च) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act on the ground of limitation. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: “10.1 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash/set- aside the impugned order dated 04.11.2025 Annexure P/1 and may kindly be please to allow the application Under section 5 of Limitation Act and be please to direct the learned C.G. Rent Control tribunal Raipur to decide the M.J.C. No. 02/2025 in accordance with law. 10.2 This Hon'ble court may kindly be call for the records for its kind perusal which relates to petitioner's matter. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Facts of the case, as projected in this petition, are that the respondent is the recorded owner of Khasra No. 126, admeasuring 0.90 decimal, situated near Canal Linking Road, Shyam Nagar, Raipur. Out of the said land, an area of 2400 sq. ft. was given on rent to one Harinarayan @ Hariram Dhruv, the 3 husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners No.2 to 4, on an annual rent of Rs. 3,000/-. According to the respondent, a notice dated 01.06.2016 was issued to the said tenant directing him to vacate the premises on or before 30.11.2016. However, the tenant neither vacated the premises within the stipulated time nor paid rent for a period of three years. Consequently, the respondent instituted proceedings before the Rent Control Authority, Raipur. It is the respondent’s case that all notices were duly served on the tenant, but as he failed to appear, he was declared ex parte, and vide order dated 31.01.2018 (Annexure P/2), the Authority allowed the respondent’s case. Aggrieved by the ex parte order, Harinarayan @ Hariram Dhruv preferred an appeal before the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, along with an application under Section 13(1) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act and Section 10 CPC, contending that the notices were never served upon him and, therefore, the ex parte order dated 31.01.2018 deserved to be set aside. The appeal and accompanying applications (Annexure P/3) were registered and taken up for hearing. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant Harinarayan @ Hariram Dhruv passed away on 26.03.2021, and as no legal representative appeared thereafter, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution vide order dated 26.07.2021 (Annexure P/4). The petitioners later filed an application for setting aside the order dated 26.07.2021, asserting that due to the Covid-19 lockdown, they had no 4 information regarding the pending appeal. They contended that the deceased appellant had not disclosed the pendency of the case to them, and they first came to know about the matter only on 16.01.2025, after which they promptly contacted their counsel, obtained certified copies on 21.01.2025, and filed an application under Section 10(च) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on 04.02.2025 (Annexure P/5). The matter was registered as MJC No. 02/2025. However, the learned Tribunal, by order dated 04.11.2025, rejected MJC No. 02/2025 on the ground that there was a delay of 3 years, 5 months, and 3 days in filing the application. The petitioners submit that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that they had no knowledge of the proceedings earlier, and the delay was bona fide and sufficiently explained. They contend that the Tribunal committed grave illegality in rejecting the application despite the existence of justified grounds for condonation of delay and restoration of the appeal. Hence, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 04.11.2025 (Annexure P/1), the petitioners have filed the present writ petition before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is wholly perverse, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is argued that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the settled principles governing condonation of delay, particularly in matters where valuable rights of appeal are at 5 stake, and thus erred in dismissing the petitioners’ application on a hyper-technical view of limitation. It is contended that the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the original tenant, had specifically and satisfactorily explained the reasons for the delay in their application. They had no knowledge about the pendency of the appeal filed by the deceased appellant and came to know of the proceedings only in January 2025, after which they acted with promptitude. Therefore, once a plausible and bona fide explanation was offered, the learned Tribunal ought to have adopted a liberal approach and allowed the application, thereby restoring the appeal to its original number for adjudication on merits. Counsel further submits that the petitioners are in possession of land bearing Khasra No. 99, which is entirely different from the land bearing Khasra No. 126 claimed by the respondent. Both lands are adjacent, and in the absence of any demarcation report filed by the respondent, the dispute regarding identity of the land could only have been examined after restoration of the appeal. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the respondent fabricated a false rent agreement to wrongfully claim possession over their land, which makes the need for adjudication on merits all the more essential. It is further submitted that both the High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court have consistently held that matters should ordinarily be decided on merits and that delay should be condoned when a sufficient and bona fide explanation is offered. The law on 6 condonation of delay mandates an approach that advances substantial justice rather than defeats it on technical grounds. On the strength of these submissions, it is argued that the impugned order is illegal, contrary to settled judicial principles, and therefore liable to be set aside by this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petition is wholly misconceived and deserves outright dismissal. It is argued that the petitioners are tenants in occupation of approximately 2400 sq. ft. of land situated in Khasra No. 126, near Canal Linking Road, Shyam Nagar, Raipur, which exclusively belongs to the respondent. The petitioners have continued to occupy the said land despite repeated opportunities and lawful orders directing eviction. Counsel submits that the Rent Control Authority, after due consideration of the material placed on record, passed a detailed order dated 31.01.2018 allowing the respondent’s application and directing eviction of Late Hariram Dhruv. This order attained finality when an appeal was preferred by the tenant under Section 13(1) of the Rent Control Act. Significantly, the appeal was not filed by Late Hariram himself but through his Power of Attorney holder, Mithilesh Kumar Dhruv, who is petitioner No. 2 herein. Thus, the assertion that the legal heirs had no knowledge of the proceedings is factually incorrect and deliberately misleading. It is further submitted that the appeal came to be dismissed for want of prosecution on 26.07.2021 due to the continuous non-appearance of the appellant and his 7 representatives. A perusal of the order sheets clearly demonstrates that the matter was repeatedly listed for final hearing. The appellant even moved an application under Section 10 CPC, which was later withdrawn. Subsequently, on 06.04.2021, counsel appearing in the matter informed the Tribunal about the death of the appellant. Despite this, no steps were taken by the legal heirs for substitution or continuation of the appeal. Even after the Tribunal resumed functioning post-Covid, the appellants chose not to appear, resulting in dismissal for non- prosecution. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners’ conduct reveals deliberate negligence. They did not take any steps to restore the appeal for an inordinate period of 3 years, 5 months, and 3 days, and only in January 2025 filed an application under Section 10(च) of the Rent Control Act with a prayer for condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The reason cited, that they were unaware of the pending proceedings, stands falsified by the record, which clearly shows that petitioner No. 2, as Power of Attorney holder, was regularly participating in the appellate proceedings. Therefore, the petitioners are deliberately misleading this Court, and the application itself is a gross abuse of process. It is also submitted that the petitioners were simultaneously contesting a civil suit (Civil Suit No. 274A/2019) for declaration of title by adverse possession over the very same land. The said suit has already been dismissed by judgment dated 18.09.2024. This demonstrates that the petitioners have been 8 engaging in multiple, parallel, frivolous litigations with the sole intention of prolonging their illegal occupation. Counsel further submits that the Rent Control Authority has already issued a warrant of possession on 06.01.2025 directing the Tahsildar to ensure eviction of the petitioners by 30.01.2025. The petitioners, however, again avoided eviction by citing the pendency of their application before the Tribunal. Such conduct clearly demonstrates that the petitioners are intentionally abusing judicial processes to unlawfully continue in possession. It is submitted that the petitioners have no right, title, or interest to remain on the suit land and their possession is wholly unauthorized. The respondent, being the true and lawful owner, is entitled to secure eviction in accordance with the orders already passed by the competent authorities. The present petition is yet another attempt to delay execution of lawful orders and deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, in M.J.C. No. 02/2025, rejecting the petitioners’ application under Section 10(च) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act on the ground of limitation, is unsustainable. 6. From a perusal of the order dated 04.11.2025, it appears that the Tribunal has dismissed the application solely on the ground that 9 there was a delay of 3 years and 5 months in filing the same, holding that the petitioners had failed to satisfactorily explain the delay and that no plausible reasons had been assigned. The Tribunal observed that although the applicants stated that the original appellant, Hariram @ Harinarayan Dhruv, had expired during the Covid-19 period, the record clearly indicated that his son, petitioner No. 2 herein, was appearing before the Tribunal as the Power of Attorney holder of the deceased appellant during the pendency of the appeal. In view of this, the Tribunal concluded that the explanation for the prolonged delay was neither bona fide nor acceptable, and consequently dismissed the restoration application on the ground of limitation alone. However, it is a well- settled principle of law that technicalities should not override the cause of substantial justice. Applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are required to be considered in a pragmatic and liberal manner so as to advance justice, unless the delay appears to be intentional, deliberate, or actuated by mala fides. The object of limitation law is not to punish litigants but to ensure diligence, and when an explanation is offered that is reasonably plausible and not demonstrative of ulterior intent, courts must adopt a justice-oriented approach. 7. In the present case, the Tribunal has failed to examine the explanation offered by the petitioners in the correct legal perspective. The petitioners had stated that due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the subsequent death of the original appellant, they 10 had no knowledge of the pending proceedings and only upon learning of the appeal in January 2025 did they immediately take steps to obtain certified copies and file the restoration application. Whether such explanation is ultimately acceptable or not ought to have been assessed with due regard to the extraordinary circumstances prevailing at the relevant time and the overall conduct of the parties. The Tribunal, however, adopted a hyper- technical approach and dismissed the application without considering whether the delay was truly mala fide or whether the ends of justice required restoration of the appeal for adjudication on merits. 8. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay and restored the appeal for decision on merits, which it has failed to do. Accordingly, the order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the Tribunal in M.J.C. No. 02/2025 is set aside. The delay of 3 years and 5 months in filing the restoration application is hereby condoned, subject to the condition that the petitioners shall deposit the rent amount as directed by the Rent Control Authority, Raipur, vide its order dated 31.01.2018. 9. The Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, is directed to restore the appeal to its original number, hear the matter on merits, and decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month. The parties are directed to appear before 11 the Rent Control Tribunal on 05.01.2026, and the outer limit of one month shall be reckoned from that date. 10. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajni Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Shayna