1 2026:CGHC:7979 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 226 of 2026 1 - Akhilesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri P. B. Sahu Aged About 58 Years R/o House No. 23, Wallfort Paradise, Kandul, District- Raipur (C.G.) (Landlord) 2 - Smt. Kusum Sahu W/o Shri Akhilesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 57 Years R/o House No. 23, Wallfort Paradise, Kandul, District- Raipur (C.G.) (Landlord) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Manuraj Pachouri S/o S. N. Pachouri Aged About 49 Years R/o Vivekanand Nagar, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari, (C.G.) (Tenant) 2 - Rajnish Pachouri S/o S. N. Pachouri Aged About 48 Years R/o Vivekanand Nagar, Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari, (C.G.) (Tenant) 3 - Ms. Reeta Yadav Presiding Officer, Rent Control Authority, Dhamtari, Distt.- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioners : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2026.02.16 17:10:31 +0530 2 Order on Board 13/02/2026 1. The petitioners have filed this contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 28.02.2025 passed in WPC No. 4483/2024 between Manuraj Pachouri and another vs. Akhilesh Kumar Sahu and another. 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents therein were tenants. Application for eviction filed by the petitioners was allowed. Appeal against which filed by the tenants came to be dismissed by Tribunal. As also the writ petition filed by them challenging the order of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal also came to be dismissed. 3. It is further contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners thereafter have filed an application for execution of the order of eviction as provided under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011. However, from the order sheet it is appearing that the possession could not be delivered to the petitioners till date. He also read over the order sheet dated 10.09.2025, to submit that even after issuance of possession warrant, the possession could not be delivered to the petitioners and therefore, there is willful disobedience of the respondents/contemners who are the tenants and the Presiding Officer/Rent Controlling Authority. 4. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the material 3 available on record. 5. From the submission made by the counsel for the petitioners and the documents enclosed along with the petition, it is appearing that petitioners being the owner of the accommodation subject matter of the proceedings filed by them before the Rent Controlling Authority. The application filed by the petitioners before the Rent Controlling Authority was allowed and the order of eviction was passed against the non-applicants therein. Order of eviction was challenged by the non-applicants therein/respondents No.1 & 2 before Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, which came to be dismissed and thereafter, writ petition filed by them before the Division Bench of this Court also came to be dismissed. It is also reflecting that the petitioners thereafter has filed an application for execution of order of eviction passed in favour of the petitioners, and in the execution proceedings warrant of possession is also issued by the Tahsildar. Proceeding dated 10.09.2025 which is read upon by the counsel for the petitioners could only show that when the officials went to get accommodation evicted from the tenants, the tenants/respondents No.1 & 2 were not found available and their father was found present, therefore, the proceedings of eviction was not completed and the possession warrant was returned back. On 19.09.2025 the concerned authority have issued the fresh possession warrant. 6. From the aforementioned proceedings, it is appearing that the concerned authority following due process of law is taking all efforts to get the order of eviction executed and therefore, in the 4 aforementioned facts of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the contempt petition filed by the petitioners is not sustainable. 7. Accordingly, this contempt petition is dismissed. However, petitioners will be at liberty to move appropriate application for redressal of their grievances. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Ravi Mandavi