1 2026:CGHC:23064-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 346 of 2026 1. Dileep Katariya S/o Kishanlal Katariya Aged About 47 Years R/o Ward No. 24, Gali Number 2, Telipara, Golbazar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant). 2. Kishanlal Katariya S/o Late Chohit Ram Aged About 70 Years R/o Ward No. 24, Gali Number 2, Telipara, Golbazar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant). ... Petitioners versus • Uday Arun Gupta S/o Late Arun Gupta Aged About 58 Years Address - Beside Meghani Patholab, Main Road, Tilaknagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Applicant) ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Shweta Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 14/05/2026 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 17.02.2026 (Annexure- P/5) passed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) (for short ‘Tribunal’) in Miscellaneous Appeal No.13/2025 by which the appeal of the petitioners against the order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the Rent DEEPTI JHA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA 2 Controller, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Case No.19-A-90(7)/2024-2025 was dismissed. The parties to this petition shall be referred hereinafter as ‘tenants’ and ‘landlord’. 3. Petitioners are the tenants and the respondent is the landlord of a shop, which is situated at the main road Tilaknagar, Beside Dr. Meghani Patholab (for short ‘rental premises’). Rent Agreement dated 04.02.2022 was executed between the tenants and landlord, according to which, tenancy started from 01.01.2022 to 30.11.2022 for 11 months. On 07.05.2024, the landlord has sent the legal notice through his advocate to the tenant for delivering the vacant possession and remaining rent, despite that vacant possession of the rental premises was not handed over to the landlord. Thus, the landlord filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (for short ‘the Act of 2011’) before the Rent Controller, Bilaspur (C.G.), the application filed by the landlord was resisted by the tenants on various counts. The landlord examined his witnesses and thereafter, it was posted for examination of evidence of the tenants. Vide order dated 25.06.2025, when the matter was posted for evidence of tenants, he remained absent, thus, on the objection raised by the counsel for the landlord, right to lead evidence was closed for tenants. Thereafter, tenants moved an application to recall the said order and also to grant permission to lead evidence, but the said application of the tenants was rejected by the Rent Controller, Bilaspur (C.G.) vide its order dated 10.07.2025. Subsequently, the tenants have preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which was dismissed by the impugned order, which led to filing of the instant writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that tenant No.2 is septuagenarian. He submits that the case before the Rent Controller, Bilaspur (C.G.) was listed on many occasions for recording of the evidence of tenants. However, on many occasions the learned Presiding Officer was not available, thus, the case was adjourned from time to time on two-three 3 occasions. Hence, the tenants could not lead their evidence and the closing of right to lead evidence was mechanically passed by the Rent Controller, Bilaspur (C.G.) and also erred in rejecting the application filed by the tenants to lead the evidence. He further submits that the tenants failed to prove their defense before the Rent Controller, Bilaspur, and if, he is not permitted to lead the evidence, it would cause great prejudice to the tenants, therefore, he submits that one last opportunity may be granted to the tenants to lead the evidence for setting aside the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for respondent submits that sufficient opportunities have been granted to the tenants to lead their evidence and Rent Controller, Bilaspur (C.G.) has rightly closed the right to lead evidence and there is no illegality or infirmity in rejecting the application to recall or set aside the impugned order and to permit tenants to lead their evidence. Further, learned Tribunal has affirmed the order passed by the Rent Controller, Bilaspur (C.G.), hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders, therefore, this Court may not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India over the order passed by the Rent Controller and Tribunal as well. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, anxious consideration made and also perused the documents meticulously. 7. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that evidence of the landlord was closed on 10.01.2025 as reflected from the order sheets appended on record. Thereafter, matter is posted on 04.02.2025 for evidence of the tenants and on that day Presiding Officer was not available, therefore, the matter was adjourned for 04.03.2025. However, on 04.03.2025 matter was not listed, but it was listed on 21.03.2025 and on that day tenants have paid rent of Rs.10,000/- of the month of February and March through cheque, as the Presiding Officer was not available, the matter was posted on 03.04.2025. However, on 03.04.2025 and thereafter on 17.04.2025, 4 02.05.2025 Presiding Officer was again not available, the matter was adjourned. Only on 22.05.2025, the matter was directed to be listed for evidence of tenants on 30.05.2025 and on that day in absence of the tenants, the case was adjourned till 09.06.2025. However, on 09.06.2025 and further on 13.06.2025 the matter was again adjourned due to non-availability of the Presiding Officer. Thereafter, the matter was again listed on 25.06.2026 for evidence of the tenants’, but on the same day, right to lead the evidence of the tenants was closed. Later on 10.07.2025, the application filed by the tenants to recall the order dated 25.06.2025, which has been rejected by the Rent Controller, Bilaspur (C.G.) and the same has also been affirmed by the Tribunal. 8. From perusal of the order sheets, which clearly indicates that on many occasions on account of non-availability of Presiding Officer, the matter was adjourned and only on two occasions in absence of the witnesses of the tenants the matter was adjourned and suddenly closing the right to lead the evidence of the tenant on 25.06.2025. 9. Thus, taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that tenants should be granted one last opportunity to lead their evidence to prove their defense. Hence, the impugned orders dated 17.02.2026 and 25.06.2025 deserve to be and are hereby set aside. 10. It is directed that the parties shall appear before the Rent Controller on 08.06.2026. On the date fixed for appearance of parties, Rent Controller shall fix the date for examining of the non-applicants’ witness. Rent Controller thereafter shall conclude the proceeding finally within a period of 45 days from the date of appearance of the parties fixed. The non-applicants/petitioners shall examine all the witnesses on the date to be fixed by the Rent Controller positively. 5 11. With the aforesaid observation and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. 12. Interlocutory application(s), pending if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Deepti Jha