1 2026:CGHC:22713-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 544 of 2026 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 (C.G.). 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 (C.G.). 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 (C.G.). 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 (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus • Sushil Kumar Natthani S/o. Late Sohan Lal Natthani Aged About 55 Years R/o. Sadar Bazar, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Ram Kumar Tiwari, Advocate along with Mr. F. S. Khare , Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 13/05/2026 Per Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge 1. Heard. 2. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 19.03.2026 (Annexure- DEEPTI JHA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA 2 P/1) passed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) (for short ‘Tribunal’) in Miscellaneous Appeal No.44/2019. 3. By the order impugned, appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 03.10.2019 (Annexure-P/2) passed by the Rent Controller, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Case No.02-B-121 of year 2018-2019 was rejected and application under order 41 Rule 27 of CPC was also rejected by the impugned order. The parties to this petition shall be referred hereinafter, ‘petitioners’ as ‘tenants’ and ‘respondent’ as ‘landlord’. 4. Facts of the case in brief are that the landlord is the title holder of land comprised in piece of Khasra No.126, area 0.90 decimal, situated at Canal Linking Road, Shyam Nagar, Raipur (C.G.). Out of the said land, on 2400 sq. ft. land, temporary construction was made and was given on rent to the tenants for the rent as Rs.3,000/- per year, upon which the tenants have also made construction. The landlord is in need to make construction on the rental premises. Rent of month of September, 2015 to August, 2017 for 3 years amounting to Rs.9,000/- was not paid by the tenants. Thereafter, the landlord sent a registered notice through his advocate to the tenants on 01.06.2016 by giving six months time to them from the date of receipt of notice to vacate the rental premises. Even after receipt of notice, the tenants neither paid the remaining rent, nor delivered the vacant possession. Thus, the landlord had filed an application under Section 12 (2) read with clause 11 (क) & (ज) of Schedule-B of the Rent Control Act, 2011 (for short ‘the Act of 2011’), claiming vacant possession of the rental premises and payment of remaining rent amount. 5. Initially, the application was filed against the Harinarayan @ Hari Ram Dhruv before the Rent Controller on 16.08.2017, thereafter it was registered and notice was issued to the tenants, despite service of the same, deceased/tenant, Hari Ram failed to appear before the Rent Controller, upon 3 which, an ex parte proceedings was drawn against him. The evidence was led by the landlord and vide order 31.01.2018, learned Rent Controller passed the order of eviction against the deceased/tenant, Hari Ram. Thereafter, on 13.09.2019 Late Hari Ram Dhruv, tenant moved an application under Section 10 (e) (f) of the Act, 2011 for setting aside the ex parte order. The said application was rejected by the Rent Controller on 03.10.2019, which led to filing of the miscellaneous appeal before the Rent Controller. It appears that the original tenant has passed away and legal representatives were substituted on record. By the order impugned, the appeal filed by the tenants was dismissed, which led to filing of this writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the learned Rent Controller as well as Rent Tribunal committed an error in rejecting the application of the tenants for setting aside the ex parte order. He submits that Rent Controller committed an error in proceeding ex parte against the tenants. He further submits that the reasons assigned by the Rent Controller by rejecting application is perverse. He further submits that if an opportunity is not granted to them, then it would cause loss to the tenants. The ex parte proceedings and order drawn against the original tenant is not in accordance with law. He further submits that one last opportunity may be granted to the tenants to putforth their case and make a proper defense before the Rent Controller. Thus, he prays that impugned order deserves to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent supports that impugned order passed by the Rent Controller as well as Rent Tribunal and submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, anxious consideration made and also perused the documents meticulously. 9. This is a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction as an appellate Court. If the orders 4 impugned absolutely perverse or exercising the jurisdiction with material irregularity or illegality with jurisdictional error, only in such conditions, this Court would exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. Perusal of the record would indicate that the application for eviction was filed by the landlord, in which, original tenants remained ex parte, thus proceeded ex parte and thereafter order impugned dated 03.10.2019 was passed by the Rent Controller directing tenants to evict the rental premises. The order observes that after the registration of the application, the notice was duly served upon the original tenants, thereafter he remained absent and ex parte proceeding was drawn against him. The application under Section 10 (e) (f) of the Act, 2011 filed by the original tenants stating inter alia that he was not aware about the application for eviction filed by the landlord, thus he could not appear before the Rent Controller and took proper defense. Though, the matter was listed before the Rent Controller on various dates for adducing the defense evidence, but the defense has utterly failed to adduce any such evidence. 11. The learned Rent Controller while rejecting the said application, given a categorical finding that in the application filed by the landlord notice was issued to the original tenant Hari Ram Dhruv for his appearance on 22.09.2017. The notice was received by his wife Smt. Janki Devi, one of the present tenant. Despite service of notice, the original tenant Hari Ram Dhruv failed to appear before the Rent Controller till 31.11.2017. Thereafter, an ex parte proceeding was drawn against him and order was passed on 13.11.2017. The Rent Controller has also observed that against the order dated 31.01.2018, initially an appeal was preferred before the Rent Control Tribunal and ultimately rejected the application. The learned counsel for the tenants submitted that earlier appeal was filed by the original tenant was 5 withdrawn with liberty to move an application for setting aside the ex parte order. 12. However, the fact that notice was issued to application for eviction was served upon the original tenant and he failed to appear before the Rent Controller, thus, his application was rejected. The finding so recorded by the Rent Controller was also affirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has observed that the tenants could not establish their title over the rental premises on the basis of adverse possession and also observed that notice on the application for eviction was duly served upon the tenants and despite of knowledge they failed to appear before the Rent Controller and they have also not disclosed any proper adequate reason for their non appearance before the Rent Controller. 13. In the considered opinion of this Court, the finding so recorded by the learned Rent Controller and Rent Control Tribunal appears to be based on proper appreciation of evidence and material available on record, there seems to be no jurisdictional error or illegality in the impugned orders. Thus, the orders cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to material on record, warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. Accordingly, the instant writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 15. Interlocutory application(s), pending if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Deepti Jha