1 2025:CGHC:20924-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Order reserved on : 26-03-2025 Order passed on : 07-05-2025 WP227 No. 119 of 2022 SCC Investment Through Director, Shri Sunil Agrawal S/o Radheshyam Agrawal, Aged About- 50 Years, R/o - Behind Government Girls College, Seva Kunj Road, Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus State Bank Of India Through - Manager, Main Branch, Raigarh, R/o - Kewrabadi, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, JJ CAV ORDER Per Rajani Dubey, J In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 29.10.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Appeal No.47A/2021 whereby the Tribunal remanded the whole matter to the 2 Rent Controller, Raigarh without deciding the real controversy between the parties. 02. Briefly stated, case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is landlord and the respondent is tenant in the property situated at Gandhi Ganj, Raigarh bearing Plot No.42, Area 10186 sqft which was purchased by the petitioner through registered sale deed dated 30.6.2010. Even prior to purchase of the said property by the petitioner, the respondent was using this property in the capacity of tenant. The respondent acquired the property of the petitioner for rental purposes from 1.7.2010 till 31.10.2012. However, after lapse of agreement, when the petitioner went to see his property, he was astonished to see that the respondent in violation of terms and conditions of the agreement changed the interior and the exterior of the property without informing the petitioner about it. When the petitioner demanded compensation for this unauthorized alteration of the property as also asked for increase in the rent, the respondent paid no need to it which compelled the petitioner to send a legal notice on 16.10.2012 to the respondent demanding rental amount of Rs.5,09,300/- and compensation. Ultimately, the petitioner filed a suit before the Rent Controller, Raigarh and after receipt of notice in the said case, the respondent filed an application under Section 25 of the CG Rent Control Act for submission of its reply and objections. 3 03. The Rent Controller after perusal of the records passed an order for detailed analysis and directed the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department for proper enquiry. As per enquiry report, the Rent Controller held respondent liable to pay rental amount of Rs.2,34,060/- to the petitioner and also directed the respondent to hand over possession of the property to the petitioner vide order dated 27.6.2017 (Annexure P/4). However, in appeal filed by the respondent the learned Tribunal vide order dated 10.7.2018 (Annexure P/5) quashed the order dated 27.6.2017 of the Rent Controller and remanded matter with a direction to decide the case on merits after affording opportunity of leading evidence to the parties. As possession of the property was handed over to the petitioner but rental amount was not being paid by the respondent and despite several opportunities being afforded no oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the respondent, the Rent Controller directed the respondent to pay rental amount of Rs.2,34,060/- to the petitioner vide order dated 18.1.2021 (Annexure P/6). This order was challenged in appeal by the respondent and the learned Tribunal by the impugned order dated 29.10.2021 (Annexure P/1) set aside the order dated 18.1.2021 and again remanded the matter back to the Rent Controller with a direction to decide the application of the petitioner afresh on merits considering the averments made in the application and the reply filed by the respondent. Hence this petition for the following relief: 4 “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the order dated 29.10.2021 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur in Appeal No.47A/2021 (Annexure P-1). 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to restore the order dated 18.01.2021 (Annexure P-6). 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in favor of the petitioner may kindly be passed.” 04. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order of the Tribunal is against the settled principles of law and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. It failed to appreciate the fact that despite granting number of opportunities to the respondent/bank for adducing evidence and recording statements, the bank never took it seriously and always tried to stall the legal proceedings. The respondent also never paid or deposited proper and full rental amount. After order of eviction, the matter did not rest there, the respondent again failed to pay the rent and the petitioner was thus forced to file another eviction petition on the ground of non-payment of rent for the period from 2010 and it was only after filing of the said petition and in order to avoid eviction, the respondent deposited a meager part of rent. Learned Tribunal has failed to see that remanding 5 the matter again and again as a whole is against the Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC. The respondent did not file any objection with regard to arrears of rent and also did not dispute it. It is a well settled law that the matter should not be remanded to fill up the lacuna. Therefore, the present petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed. 05. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/bank would contend that the learned Tribunal after proper appreciation of the overall facts and documents placed on record rightly directed the Rent Controller to decide the matter after recording evidence of the parties on merits. He would, however, submit that the respondent/bank has already vacated the suit premises, handed over vacant possession 12.10.2015 and deposited the key on 10.3.2017 with the Rent Controller, and is ready to pay rent @ Rs.20,000/- per month from June, 2013 to 10th March, 2017 or as directed by this Court. Hence this petition being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 06. This Court on 5.12.2024 made an endeavour to settle the dispute between the parties through mediation but as per mediation report dated 21.1.2025, mediation failed. 07. It is clear from the order of learned Rent Controller dated 18.1.2021 that the Rent Controller fixed the rent as Rs.2,34,060/- p.m. for the period from 1.7.2010 to 1.7.2017. It is not in dispute that previous rent was settled between the parties as Rs.20,000/- per 6 month and as per the respondent/bank it deposited the rent till June, 2013 @ Rs.20,000/- pm, vacated the suit premises on 12.10.2015 (AD- 2) and deposited the key on 10.3.2017 with the Rent Controller (AD-3). It is also evident from the documents that as per previous rent agreement, the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.16,000/- on or before the 5th day of every month for the preceding month. 08. As per valuation report relied upon by the petitioner, present market value of the suit premises is Rs.803.73 lacs as calculated by the surveyor. The respondent/bank has also filed rent fixation report of the Sub Engineer, the Executive Engineer and the Sub Divisional Officer, PWD, Raigarh Division, according to which monthly rent was assessed at Rs.28,000/-. 09. Learned Tribunal while remanding the matter back to the Rent Controller, in paras 11 & 12 of the impugned order observed as under: “11/ इस अधिकरण द्वा र अपील क्रमां क 10अ/18 मां पी रिरत आदेश दिदेनाँ क 10.07.2018 क आदेश क क डिक -13 मां यह स्पष्ट डिकय ह" डिक " उत्तरवा दे& नाँ यद्यडिपी अपीनाँ मां(ल आवादेनाँ मां वा स स)डिवा क डिकर य 50.00 रू. वार्ग,फु) ट मां सिसक क डिहस ब स सिलए जा नाँ क प्रस्त वा अपील र्थी6 ब7क क8 भेजानाँ बत य ह", लडिकनाँ यह देर डिकस डिहस ब स डिकस तरह उसनाँ अक ल तय कर दिदेय , यह स्पष्ट नाँह: डिकय र्गय ह"। ऊपीर यह बत य जा चु)क ह"। वा स स)डिवा क डिकर य पीहल डिकतनाँ र्थी , यह नाँह: बत य र्गय ह", तब प्रस्त डिवात डिकर य क ब र मां अनाँ)मां नाँ नाँह: डिनाँक लनाँ चु डिहए। इस प्रक र भे ड़ा डिनाँयत्रक नाँ वा स स)डिवा क जा8 डिकर य डिनाँ ,रण इस प्रकरण मां डिकय 7 ह" वाह भे भे ड़ा डिनाँयत्रण अधिडिनाँयमां 2011 क प्र वा नाँ@ क अतर्ग,त नाँह: ह", क्य@डिक इस अधिडिनाँयमां मां भे ड़ा डिनाँयत्रक द्वा र डिकर य क डिनाँ ,रण करनाँ क क8ई प्र वा नाँ ह नाँह: ह"।" बत य ह"। आर्ग क डिक -14 मां यह उल्लख ह" डिक " इस प्रक र इस प्रकरण मां जाह उत्तरवा दे& (भेवानाँस्वा मां) नाँ अपील र्थी6 (डिकर यदे र) स वा स स)डिवा क रिरक्त आधिपीत्य और बक य डिकर य , हजा ,नाँ तर्थी नाँ)कस नाँ दिदेल ए जा नाँ क सिलए भे ड़ा डिनाँयत्रक क समांक्ष आवादेनाँ प्रस्त)त डिकय , त8 उसक आवादेनाँ पीर लडिबत क य,वा ह क देHर नाँ वा स स)डिवा क8 रिरक्त कर अपील र्थी6 द्वा र वा स स)डिवा क चु ब भे ड़ा डिनाँयत्रक क8 सIपीनाँ क उल्लख डिकय र्गय ह"। छ.र्ग. भे ड़ा डिनाँयत्रण अधिडिनाँयमां, 2011 मां उल्लखिखत प्र वा नाँ@ क अतर्ग,त भेवानाँस्वा मां (उत्तरवा दे&) द्वा र वा स स)डिवा स अपील र्थी6 (डिकर यदे र) क8 डिनाँष्क सिसत डिकए जा नाँ और बक य डिकर य वा हजा ,नाँ दिदेल नाँ क प्रस्त)त आवादेनाँ मां जाह एक ओर वा स स)डिवा क ओधिप्प्रत्य रिरक्त कर भेवानाँ क चु ब भे ड़ा डिनाँयत्रक क पी स अपील र्थी6 द्वा र जामां कर दिदेए जा नाँ क ब दे सिसफु, भे ड़ा डिनाँयत्रक क8 बक य डिकर य और हजा ,नाँ दिदेल ए जा नाँ सब अनाँ)त8ष पीर र्ग)ण- दे8ष क आ र पीर आदेश करनाँ र्थी , लडिकनाँ भे ड़ा डिनाँयत्रक नाँ छ.र्ग. भे ड़ा डिनाँयत्रण अधिडिनाँयमां, 2011 क अतर्ग,त प्रस्त)त आवादेनाँ क डिनाँर करण करत हुए वा स स)डिवा क डिकर य ह डिनाँ ,रिरत कर दिदेय ह", जा8 डिक स्थिRर रखनाँ य8ग्य नाँह: ह"।" इस प्रक र अधिकरण द्वा र पी(वा, डिकर य डिनाँ ,रण क आदेश क8 स्थिRर रखनाँ य8ग्य नाँह: पी त हुए उक्त आदेश क8 डिनाँरस्त डिकय र्गय पीरत) इस पी रिरत आदेश क डिवापीरत डिवाचु रण न्य य लय नाँ उस डिबन्दु क आ र पीर डिकर य क आकलनाँ कर आदेश पी रिरत डिकय ह", जा8 डिक अधिकरण क आदेश क डिवापीरत पी रिरत डिकय जा नाँ पी य र्गय । 8 12. उपीर8क्त डिवाश्लेषण क आ र पीर डिवाचु रण न्य य लय द्वा र पी रिरत आदेश स्थिRर रख जा नाँ य8ग्य नाँह: ह"। अतW अपील स्वाक र कर भे ड़ा डिनाँयत्रक, र यर्गढ़ द्वा र पी रिरत आदेश दिदेनाँ क 18.01.2021 डिनाँरस्त करत हुए इस डिनाँदेYश क स र्थी प्रकरण प्रडितप्रडिषत (Remand) डिकय जा त ह" डिक डिवाचु रण न्य य लय भेवानाँस्वा मां क आवादेनाँ तर्थी डिकर यदे र क जावा ब क आ र पीर वा देप्रश्न क डिनाँमां ,ण कर आवादेनाँ मां चु ह र्गए अनाँ)त8ष पीर स क्ष्य लकर र्ग)ण- दे8ष क आ र पीर स क्ष्य क डिवाश्लेषण कर डिवाधिक डिनाँण,य पी रिरत कर।" 10. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for both the parties stated that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case whatever reasonable rate of rent is fixed by this Court, would be acceptable to them. 11. From the documents on record it is clear that this case was filed before the Rent Controller on 1.8.2014. The Rent Controller passed an order on 18.1.2021 and the learned Tribunal passed order on 29.10.2021 thereby remanding the matter back to the Rent Controller for deciding the same afresh on merits. As such, since 2014 the litigation is pending between the parties and it is not in dispute that the suit premises is vacated by the respondent/bank on 12.10.2015 and key was deposited on 10.3.2017 with the Rent Controller. It also transpires from the material on record that initially rent of the suit premises was fixed at Rs.16,000/- per month and the rent was paid by the respondent/bank lastly @ Rs.20,000/- pm. As per the valuation 9 report, market value of the property as on 05th February, 2025 is Rs.803.73 lacs (Eight crore three lacs and seventy three thousand) and as per rent fixation report of the officers of PWD, Raigarh Division, rate of monthly rent is determined at Rs.28,000/-. 12. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the opinion that rent @ Rs.60,000/- per month of the suit premises would be just and proper. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent/bank to deposit rent of the suit premises @ Rs.60,000/- per month from June, 2013 to July, 2017, within a period of three months, failing which it shall carry interest @ 9% per annum. The amount, if any, already paid by the respondent/bank towards rent of the suit premises of the aforesaid period shall be adjusted accordingly. No order as to cost. Sd/ Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2025.05.08 10:33:18 +0530