1 CGHC010274912026 2026:CGHC:34729-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 963 of 2026 Pramod Agrawal S/o Om Prakash Agrawal, R/o Company Bazaar, Ambikapur, Thana, Tehsil And District Ambikapur Sarguja, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner versus Ramnaresh Gupta S/o Shyamdhan Gupta R/o Deviganj Road, Ambikapur, Thana, Tehsil And District Ambikapur Sarguja, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent (Cause title is taken from CIS system) For Petitioner : Dr. Prachi Diwan, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order On Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 07.08.2026 1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 01.05.2026 passed in Appeal No. 2 of 2026, whereby the learned Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, while allowing the BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 application for grant of stay, directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the total amount of ₹12,96,000/- towards arrears of rent. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this case are that the respondent filed an application under Section 12 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (In short ‘the Act of 2011”) before the Rent Controlling Authority, Ambikapur, District Surguja, seeking eviction of the petitioner from the tenanted shop on the grounds of bona fide need and default in payment of rent. Aapart from seeking eviction, the respondent also claimed recovery of arrears of rent allegedly due from the petitioner. The said application came to be allowed by the Rent Controlling Authority. Aggrieved there with, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur along with an application seeking stay of the operation and execution of the eviction order. The learned Tribunal, by the impugned order, granted stay subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit 50% of the total arrears of rent quantified at ₹12,96,000/-. Aggrieved by the said condition imposed while granting stay, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is contrary to the facts and law applicable. He further submits that the claim of arrears is disputed and is yet to be adjudicated in the pending appeal, therefore, learned Tribunal erred in directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the arrears of rent while granting stay in favour 3 of petitioner. The learned Tribunal, without considering the merits of the appeal, the nature of dispute, and the financial burden upon the petitioner, has imposed an onerous condition, which is bad and illegal, therefore, direction to deposit 50% of the arrears of rent, without assigning cogent reasons, is arbitrary and liable to be modified. He prays that the condition imposed by the learned Tribunal be set aside or suitably modified and appropriate protection be granted to the petitioner during pendency of the appeal. 4. We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition. 5. Perusal of the documents annexed with writ petition would show that the respondent filed an application under Section 12 of the Act of 2011 before the Rent Controlling Authority, Ambikapur, seeking eviction of the petitioner from the tenanted shop on the ground of bona fide need and non-payment of rent. The learned Rent Controlling Authority, vide order dated 16.12.2025, allowed the application and directed the petitioner to vacate the shop and hand over possession to the respondent. The petitioner was also directed to pay arrears of rent from July, 2021 till the date of the order at the rate of ₹24,000/- per month, totaling ₹12,96,000/-. 6. From perusal of the order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, it is apparent that the learned Authority, after considering the pleadings and evidence available on record, 4 arrived at a conclusion that the landlord/respondent had successfully established the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as well as the default committed by the petitioner in payment of rent. Accordingly, the learned Authority directed the petitioner to vacate the tenanted shop and also directed payment of arrears of rent. 7. Upon consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner and facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the direction to deposit 50% of the arrears of rent amounting to ₹12,96,000/- is only a condition for grant of interim protection and does not amount to adjudication of the rights of the parties. The learned Tribunal has exercised its discretion in order to safeguard the interest of the landlord during the pendency of the appeal. The petitioner has failed to establish that the said condition is unreasonable, arbitrary, or beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. In absence of any jurisdictional error or perversity in the impugned order, no interference under the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court is warranted. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition has no merit, which is liable to be and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Balram