1 CGHC010262302026 2026:CGHC:34863 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 839 of 2026 1 - Ramkrishna Bhargav S/o Late Shri Kashi Prasad Bhargav Aged About 81 Years R/o Surya Vihar R-3/4 Lingiyadih Sipat Road, Tah. And Dist- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Dr. Jayalaxmi D/o Anand Kumar Prasad Aged About 71 Years R/o Surya Vihar R-3/4, Lingiyadih Sipat Road Tah And Dist- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Manikpuri, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order On Board 07.08.2026 1. The default as pointed out by the Registry is waived off. 2. Heard. 3. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 filed by the petitioner against the order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the learned Tenth District Judge, Bilaspur District Bilaspur passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.52/2022 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order dated 22.06.2022 passed by Rent Controller Bilaspur in case No.19/A-90(7)/2022-23 has been affirmed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submits that the petitioner has filed an application for restoration of possession over the subject land before the Rent Controller, Bilaspur with the ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 pleading that he has been unauthorisedly evicted by the landlord from the subject premises on the ground of his bona fide need, whereas he has no bona fide need over the subject premises. He would further submit that the application for restoration of possession on the subject premises is rejected by the Rent Controller Authority vide order dated 22.06.2022 on the ground that the Rent Control Act, 2011 (in short ‘Act of 2011’) is not applicable in the area Lingiyadih which is the rural area and has rejected the application. He further submits that against the order passed by the Rent Controller, the petitioner has filed his miscellaneous appeal before the learned Tenth District Judge, Bilaspur which has also been rejected as not maintainable by observing that under the new Act of 2011, the Appellate Tribunal has been constituted for redressal of the grievances of the landlord as well as tenant. He would further submit that since the Rent Controller has observed that the Act of 2011 is not applicable at Lingiyadih area, therefore, while invoking the provisions of old Act i.e. Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act of 1961’), the petitioner invoked the appellate jurisdiction before the learned 10th District Judge which was maintainable, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned judge is erroneous and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record annexed with the petition. 6. It is undisputed in the present case that after getting eviction by 3 the landlord from the subject premises, the petitioner filed an application before the Rent Controller on 29.04.2022 for restoration of possession and the said application has been filed under the Act of 1961. The Act of 1961 has been repealed and a new Act of 2011 came into force from 06.11.2012. Initially it was applicable to the municipal corporation areas, however, by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Amended Act, 2015, it has been made applicable to the whole State of Chhattisgarh including the area in which the present subject property is situated i.e. Lingiyadih District Bilaspur. The petitioner has filed his application on 29.04.2022 and at that time the Amended provision of Act of 2011 is applicable and the petitioner could have challenged the order dated 22.06.2022 passed by Rent Controller before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Act of 2011. 7. The learned Tenth District Judge has observed in its order that the Appellate Tribunal has constituted under the Act of 2011 and the miscellaneous appeal is not maintainable before the learned District Judge under the Act of 1961. 8. In view of the aforesaid provision and amended provisions of Act of 2011, I do not find any perversity or jurisdictional error in the order impugned passed by the learned Tenth District Judge. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition failed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Saxena