1 2026:CGHC:22683-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3196 of 2025 Shamsun Nisha @ Noori W/o Late Mirja Khalil Beg Aged About 60 Years Resident Of Dhobi Gali, Baijnathpara, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1 - Jaheda Begam @ Achchhu D/o Late Makbul Ahmad Resident Of Dhobi Gali, Baijnathpara, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Rent Control Tribunal Raipur Through Member, Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Hon’ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge ORDER ON BOARD Per Sachin Singh Rajput, J: 13/05/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 09.04.2025, passed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Controlling Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) (for short”Tribunal”) in Appeal No. 27-A/2024, arising out of the order dated 22.03.2024 passed by the Rent Controlling Officer, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Case No. 53-90(8)/2013-14. HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2026.05.23 15:47:23 +0530 2 2. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner is referred to herein as landlady and the respondent No. 1 is referred to as tenant. 3. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that an application under Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act 2011 (in short “Act, 2011) was filed by the landlady before the learned Rent Controller for vacant possession and recovery of remaining amount of rent in respect of a tenanted house bearing No. 664, situated at Moulanan Abdul Rauf Ward, Baijnath Para, Raipur, which is referred as subject property against the tenant. As per pleadings, the the landlady is the title holder of a rental property and had given one room of the house to the tenant on rent for Rs 2,000 per month. The tenancy was oral and the rent was required to be paid by 5th day of every month mandatorily. The rent amounting to Rs. 48,000/- for the month of March, 2012 to March 2014 was outstanding, which was not paid by the tenant despite of a demand being made. The tenanted premises is required to be vacated bonafidley for residential purpose of his son, thus, the said application was filed. Despite of sending a legal notice through her advocate on 15.04.2014 for demand of rent and also for vacant possession, neither the rented premises has been vacated nor the outstanding rent has been paid. The tenant had appeared before the learned Rent Controller and filed her reply denying the averments made in the claim application on the premise that the actual owner and possession holder of the rented premises is one Shahnaz Begam @ Shainu, from whom she has taken the house on rent and is paying rent to her. The tenant has denied that the petitioner/landlady was the owner of the rented house and has also denied being the tenant of the petitioner/land paying a monthly rent of Rs. 2,000, hence, the application filed by the landlady / petitioner is liable to be rejected. 4. On the basis of above broad pleadings made in the aforesaid application, the learned Rent Controller framed issue which as under: 3 Issue No. 1- Is there a relationship of building owner and tenant between the applicant and the non-applicant? Issue No. 2- Whether the applicant has a bonafide need of the disputed accommodation facility for the residence of her son? Issue No. 3- Is the applicant a habitual defaulter in paying the rent amount? Issue No. 4- Whether the applicant is entitled to obtain vacant possession of the disputed accommodation from the non- applicant? 5. The land lord examined three witnesses in support of her pleadings made in the application. 6. Later on, the tenant was proceeded ex-parte before the Rent Controller on 22.03.2024 The land lord exhibited documents as Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/4 Tribunal. After appreciating the material available on record, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the application filed by the land lord deciding the aforesaid issues against the land lord vide its order dated 22.03.2024, against which the land lord has preferred the appeal before the Tribunal, which also stood dismissed vide impugned order dated 09.04.2025, against which instant writ petition has been preferred. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Controller as well as the Tribunal is arbitrary, illegal and against the provision of Act, 2011. He also submits that the both the Tribunal as well as the Rent Controller have not appreciated the evidence brought by the land lord in its proper perspective. He further submits that an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC was filed before the learned Tribunal which was illegally rejected. He further submits that all the issues decided against the landlady, ought to have decided in her favour, thus, he submits that the impugned order may be set aside. 4 8. Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that it is a dispute between the land lord and the tenant. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. This issue No. 1 is the core subject matter of this writ petition, which relates to relationship between the landlady and the tenant i.e. petitioner and the respondent No. 1. 11. Though the landlady tried to prove by her own testimony and that of other witnesses that she is the owner and landlady of the rented property and produced certain documents including property tax receipts before the Hon'ble Rent Controller, yet the issue remains unresolved. 12. Learned Rent Controller, on the basis of assessment of evidence, rejected the application and held that the landlady has not stated in her application as to from what date the respondent is her tenant of the tenanted premises and to which date monthly rent was paid regularly. The similar statements was given by the witnesses of the landlady. The learned Rent Controller has also found that no document has been filed by the landlady to demonstrate that the respondent is the tenant and decided the issue No. 1 against the landlady holding that there is no landlady - tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1. This finding was affirmed by the learned Tribunal also. In the appellate stage the landlady has also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC., that application was rejected holding that there is no satisfactory and adequate reason has been assigned. 13. The learned Tribunal observed that it was necessary for the landlady to prove that she is the owner of the tenanted premises and the respondent is the tenant. The learned Tribunal has also found that the receipt 5 of property tax was of the year 2022 whereas the application for eviction was filed before the learned Rent Controller in the year 2014 and merely on the basis of receipt of property tax, the the landlady cannot be said to be the owner of the tenanted premises. Learned Tribunal was also found that as to when the tenanted premises was received by the landlady has not been mentioned. The rest of the finding of the learned Rent Controller has duly been affirmed by the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has held that landlady and the witnesses could not prove as to when the respondent become the tenant and as to when the rent was paid and thus held that there was no transaction of rent between the petitioner and the respondent. 14. Earlier this petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India and the impugned order cannot be set aside exercising of power of the appellate Court. Thus, Court after meticulous assessment of the record available and submissions, does not feels that the learned Rent Controller or learned Tribunal committed any jurisdictional error in rejecting the application and appeal of the landlady. It does not appear that the Rent Controller and the Tribunal has passed the impugned orders illegally arbitrary or contrary to the records which cannot be perverse to the finding. 15. In light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that both the court below have not committed any illegality or infirmity in passing the impugned order, which do not call for any interference in the instant petition. Hence, this writ petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Ami/H.Ansari