1 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2085 of 2025 Order Reserved on 16.03.2026 Order Delivered on 14.05.2026 1 - Dr. Manmohan Albert Dass S/o Late Joseph Charls Dass Aged About 84 Years Resident Of Opposite Ambedkar School, Magarpara, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Leela Devi W/o Late Om Prakash Kesharwani Aged About 76 Years Residents Of Before Gaya Prasad Lalmani, Flour Mill, Subhash Nagar, Gondpara, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Sanjay Kumar Alias Pappu S/o Late Om Prakash Kesharwani Aged About 53 Years Residents Of Before Gaya Prasad Lalmani, Flour Mill, Subhash Nagar, Gondpara, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - The Rent Control Tribunal Through The Registrar, Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, Old R.D.A. Building, 1st Floor, Shastri Chowk, Raipur- 492001 (C.G.) ... Respondents VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate For Respondents:- Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate along with Mr. Ali Rizvi, Advocate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Division Bench : Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad CAV Order Per, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner challenges the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, whereby despite affirming the findings of the Rent Controlling Authority on merits, the eviction decree has been set aside on a suo motu technical ground of defective verification of the application, which is a curable and directory defect, without affording any opportunity to the petitioner, rendering the impugned order illegal and unsustainable in law. 2. Subject matter in brief is that the petitioner is the lawful owner and title-holder of the suit shop, which had been let out to the respondents/tenants. Owing to bona fide requirements and other valid grounds, the petitioner filed an eviction application on 29.09.2018 before the learned Rent Controlling Authority, Bilaspur. The learned Rent Controlling Authority, after affording due 3 opportunity to both parties and upon proper appreciation of pleadings and evidence on record, allowed the application and passed a decree of eviction against the respondents/tenants. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents preferred an appeal before the learned Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur. The learned Tribunal, upon consideration, affirmed the findings recorded by the Rent Controlling Authority on all material issues. However, instead of dismissing the appeal, the learned Tribunal allowed the same on a suo motu ground that the eviction application was not verified in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Adaptation Rules, 2016. It is submitted that the said ground was neither raised by the respondents at any stage nor was any opportunity granted to the petitioner to cure the alleged defect of verification. The learned Tribunal, thus, erred in law in setting aside the well-reasoned eviction order on a purely technical ground. It is further submitted that the requirement of verification of pleadings is directory in nature and not mandatory, and any defect therein is curable. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from patent illegality, arbitrariness, and violation of principles of natural justice. By way of the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, whereby despite affirming the findings on merits, the eviction decree has been set aside on an unsustainable and 4 technical ground. 3. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs in the present writ petition:- “10:1. that, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the finding given in paragraph 11 of the judgment/order impugned of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur passed in AppealNo. 40-A/2024 on 20.3.2025 in case of Smt. Leela Devi & another v. Dr. Manmohan Albert Dass (Ann. P/6). Further, may kindly affirm the judgment/order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, Bilaspur, passed on 26.6.2024 in Case No. 10-A- 90(7)/2018-19 in case of Dr. Manmohan Albert Dass versus Smt. Leela Devi & another (Ann. P/4). 10:2. that, the Court may pleased to grant any relief as thinks and proper in the interest of justice. 10:3. that, kindly call for the records of both the Courts below for right decision of this case as this Hon'ble Court may thinks proper.” 4. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner is the landlord, title-holder and owner of the tenanted shop, whereas the respondents are tenants thereof. The petitioner, through counsel, served a legal notice dated 23.03.2018 under Serial No. 11(h) of 5 Schedule-II read with Section 12(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Upon expiry of the statutory period of six months, the petitioner filed an eviction application on 29.09.2018 along with a supporting affidavit before the learned Rent Controlling Authority, Bilaspur. The said application was duly registered, notices were issued and served upon the respondents, who appeared and filed their written statement. Thereafter, upon full trial, including examination of witnesses and hearing of both parties, the learned Rent Controlling Authority allowed the application and passed an eviction order dated 26.06.2024 against the respondents. Being aggrieved, the respondents preferred Appeal No. 40-A/2024 before the learned Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur. The learned Tribunal, while affirming the findings of the Rent Controlling Authority on merits, vide order dated 20.03.2025, allowed the appeal and set aside the eviction order solely on a suo motu ground regarding want of verification of the eviction application under Rule 2 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Adaptation Rules, 2016. The said action was taken without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to cure the alleged defect. 5. Mr. Somkant Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal is wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to settled 6 principles of law, inasmuch as while deciding the appeal on merits, the learned Tribunal has reversed the reasoned order passed by the learned Rent Controlling Authority and allowed the appeal preferred by the tenant solely on the technical ground that the eviction application filed by the petitioner-landlord was not duly verified in terms of Rule 2 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Adaptation Rules, 2016. It is submitted that Rule 2 of the said Rules merely provides that an application for eviction should be signed and verified by the landlord and supported by a duly sworn affidavit; however, non-verification of the application cannot be held to be fatal to the proceedings, as such defect is purely procedural in nature and constitutes at best a curable irregularity. Learned counsel submits that the learned Appellate Tribunal has committed an error of law in setting aside the eviction decree solely on such technical ground, particularly when no objection regarding verification was ever raised by the respondents/tenants before the learned Rent Controlling Authority or even in appeal, and the defect, if any, was never pointed out nor any opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to cure the same. It is further submitted that the requirement of verification is akin to the provisions contained under Order VI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the same is directory rather than mandatory, the object being only to ensure procedural discipline and not to defeat 7 substantive rights of the parties. Defective or absent verification does not render the proceedings non est in the eyes of law and can be rectified at any stage. In support, learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vidyawati Gupta vs. Bhakti Hari Nayak AIR 2006 SC 1194, wherein it has been held that procedural defects relating to verification are curable and should not defeat the cause of justice. Reliance is also placed on Ramesh B. Nyamagowdar vs. Hosamani Major AIR 2021 KAR 47 and Akshay Mehta vs. Smt. Usha Dutta 2018 (3) ADR 633, wherein it has been held that omission in verification does not affect the merits of the case and remains a mere irregularity. 6. It is contended that the eviction application was duly scrutinized, registered and entertained by the learned Rent Controlling Authority, evidence was led by both parties, and the matter was adjudicated on merits. Therefore, the learned Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the eviction decree on a hyper- technical ground which neither goes to the root of the matter nor causes prejudice to the tenant. Learned counsel submits that such an approach is contrary to the settled principle that procedural laws are handmaids of justice and should not be allowed to frustrate substantive adjudication, as reiterated in Pratap Singh vs. Shri Krishna Gupta AIR 1956 SC 140. It is lastly submitted that once 8 the appeal had been examined on merits, the learned Tribunal could not have non-suited the petitioner-landlord solely on a curable procedural defect, and therefore the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controlling Authority deserves to be restored in the interest of justice. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that the learned Rent Control Tribunal has not committed any error of law in allowing the appeal and setting aside the eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controlling Authority, as the eviction application itself suffered from a fundamental defect going to the root of maintainability. It is submitted that Rule 2 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Adaptation Rules, 2016 specifically mandates that an application for eviction shall be signed and verified by the landlord and shall also be supported by a duly sworn affidavit. According to learned counsel, the language employed in the Rule is mandatory in nature and the requirement cannot be treated as a mere formality, inasmuch as the legislature has consciously prescribed such condition as a prerequisite for institution of eviction proceedings under the special statutory mechanism created under the rent control law. It is contended that when a statute prescribes a particular mode for institution of proceedings, the same is required to be strictly 9 adhered to, and non-compliance thereof renders the proceedings legally defective and non-maintainable. Learned counsel submits that the proviso contained in Rule 2 leaves no manner of doubt that verification and affidavit are integral parts of a valid eviction application, and absence thereof strikes at the very foundation of the proceedings. It is argued that unlike ordinary civil pleadings governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, proceedings under the special rent control statute are governed by a self-contained procedure, and therefore mandatory procedural requirements prescribed under the Rules cannot be diluted by importing general principles applicable to civil suits. It is further contended that the defect in the present case is not a simple irregularity but amounts to non-compliance of a mandatory statutory condition precedent for maintainability of the eviction petition. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that unless the application is properly verified and supported by affidavit, there is no legally valid pleading before the authority, and therefore the learned Rent Controlling Authority ought not to have entertained the same at all. Merely because the application was registered and trial proceeded, the inherent defect does not stand cured, particularly when the defect goes to the root of jurisdiction and maintainability. It is also submitted that the learned Rent Control Tribunal, being the appellate authority, was fully justified in 10 examining the legality of the original proceedings and in noticing that the eviction application had not been instituted in accordance with law. According to learned counsel, once such fundamental defect was found, the learned Tribunal rightly held that the order of eviction could not be sustained, notwithstanding findings on merits, since a decree founded on a defective and non-maintainable application cannot be allowed to stand. Learned counsel further submits that procedural safeguards prescribed under the rent control statute are intended to protect both parties and ensure authenticity of pleadings, particularly because eviction proceedings directly affect valuable tenancy rights. Therefore, strict compliance is necessary and cannot be lightly ignored on equitable considerations. It is contended that the petitioner cannot be allowed to remove such defect after the case has already been decided, because allowing correction at a later stage would defeat the mandatory requirement of Rule 2 and make the provision meaningless. It is lastly submitted that the learned Tribunal has passed a well-reasoned order after considering the statutory mandate under Rule 2 and rightly reversed the eviction decree passed by the learned Rent Controlling Authority, and therefore no interference is called for in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11 10. For the sake of convenience, Rule 2 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Adaptation Rules, 2016 is reproduced hereinbelow:- " आवेदक अपना आवेदना भा ़቟ निनायं्ቔक क सम्ቌ वे द प्ቔ क रूप म बेदखली तथा वेसली हेत हेस्त ्ቌरि त तथा सत्यं निपत क समቕኌथा#त शपथा प्ቔ क स था ्ቚस्तत क गा । यंहे आवेदना द( ्ቚनितयं) म ्ቚस्तत निकयं जा एगा तथा ऐस आवेदना क क ोሥ) क( ्ቢ्ቖत0 अभिभाकथिथात निकयं जा एगा ।" 11. From a bare perusal of the record, it appears that the learned Rent Controlling Authority has passed the order of eviction on the application filed by the landlord. Though the application itself was not formally verified, a duly executed affidavit was filed in support of the eviction application, which in fact affirms and verifies the contents stated therein by the landlord. When a query was put to learned counsel for the respondent-tenant as to whether such objection regarding non-verification had been raised either before the learned Rent Controlling Authority or before the learned Rent Control Tribunal, learned counsel fairly submitted that no such specific plea was taken at either stage. It is a well-settled principle of law that a procedural defect of this nature is curable and cannot be allowed to defeat substantive rights on a mere technical ground. Such defect, by itself, cannot deprive a party of substantial justice, particularly when no prejudice has been shown to have been caused to the opposite party. 12 12. In this regard, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vidyawati Gupta (Supra), it is clear that defects relating to verification are procedural in nature and such non-compliance does not render the proceedings non est in the eyes of law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that procedural requirements are meant to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat substantive rights, and any defect in verification remains curable even at a later stage. The relevant paras of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:- “50. The intention of the legislature in bringing about the various amendments in the Code with effect from 1st July, 2002 were aimed at eliminating the procedural delays in the disposal of civil matters. The amendments effected to Section 26, Order IV and Order VI Rule 15, are also geared to achieve such object, but being procedural in nature, they are directory in nature and non- compliance thereof would not automatically render the plaint non-est, as has been held by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. 51.In our view, such a stand would be too pedantic and would be contrary to the accepted principles involving interpretation of statutes. Except for the objection taken that the plaint had not been accompanied by an affidavit in support of the pleadings, it is nobody's case that the plaint had not been otherwise verified in keeping with the unamended provisions of the Code and Rule 1 of 13 Chapter VII of the Original Side Rules. In fact, as has been submitted at the Bar, the plaint was accepted, after due scrutiny and duly registered and only during the hearing of the appeal was such an objection raised.” 13. In the present case, since an affidavit supporting the eviction application had already been filed and the respondents participated in the entire proceedings without raising any objection at the appropriate stage, the learned Rent Control Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the eviction order solely on such technical ground, particularly when no prejudice has been shown to have been caused to the tenant. 14. In the matter of Sanjay Avinashchander Kapoor vs. Ganshi Electricals AIROnline 2022 BOM 6142, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “19.The next ground for non-suiting the petitioner given by the Appellate Court is non-compliance with Order VI Rule 15 of the CPC. It is true that Order VI Rule 15 of the CPC that every pleading needs to be verified by the party or one of the parties to the suit, but at the same time, it can be verified by the other person proved to the sanctification of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case. In the present case, the plaint has been verified by Shri Sayyad Hasan Abbas, the manager of the plaintiffs' firm. In the verification clause itself, it is stated that he is working as a 14 manager at Nagpur of M/s. Nagpur Bhopal Transport Company of plaintiffs is looking after all the affairs of the suit property. Said Shri Sayyad Hasan Abbas has entered into the witness box and deposed about the bona fide need of plaintiffs. He has stated in his evidence that he is looking afterall the affairs of the suit property. In his cross- examination, he denied the suggestion that he was not knowing anything about the firm and was deposing false. Therefore, in my opinion, the verification by PW-2 Shri Sayyad Hasan Abbas, working as a manager in the plaintiffs' firm, is a person who proved to be acquainted with the facts of the case. Even otherwise, in the case of Vidyawati Gupta and others Vs. Bhakti Hari navak and others the Apex Court has held provisions of Order VI Rule 15 to be directory in nature. It has been held that the intention of the legislature in bringing about the various amendment in the Code with effect from 01.07.2002 were aimed at effected to Order VI Rule 15 was held to be directory in nature and non-compliance therewith eliminating the procedural delays in the disposal of civil matters, and therefore the amendments would not automatically render the plaint non-est.” 15. The aforesaid principle also supports the view that in the present case, when the eviction application was duly supported by an affidavit of the landlord and the matter was fully contested on 15 merits, mere absence of formal verification could not have been treated as fatal so as to invalidate the eviction proceedings. 16. A similar view has also been taken by the Delhi High Court in the matter of Akshay Mehta (Supra), wherein it has been specifically held that though verification of pleadings is required under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, absence of verification is only a procedural irregularity capable of being cured and does not invalidate the pleading itself. It has been held that a pleading lacking verification does not cease to exist in the eyes of law, but remains an irregular pleading, and such irregularity can be removed at any later stage. It has further been observed that when the pleading is signed and supported by an affidavit, absence of formal verification does not efface the document from the record. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, since the eviction application filed by the landlord was duly signed and supported by an affidavit, mere absence of formal verification could not have been made a ground to non-suit the petitioner- landlord after adjudication on merits. 17. In the matter of Uday Shankar Triyar vs. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh and Another AIR 2006 SC 269, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “15.It is, thus, now well-settled that any defect in signing the memorandum of appeal or any defect in the authority of the person signing the 16 memorandum of appeal, or the omission to file the vakalatnama executed by the appellant, along with the appeal, will not invalidate the memorandum of appeal, if such omission or defect is not deliberate and the signing of the Appeal memorandum or the presentation thereof before the appellate court was with the knowledge and authority of the appellant. Such omission or defect being one relatable to procedure, it can subsequently be corrected. It is the duty of the Office to verify whether the memorandum of appeal was signed by the appellant or his authorized agent or pleader holding appropriate vakalatnama. If the Office does not point out such defect and the appeal is accepted and proceeded with, it cannot be rejected at the hearing of the appeal merely by reason of such defect, without giving an opportunity to the appellant to rectify it. The requirement that the appeal should be signed by the appellant or his pleader (duly authorized by a Vakalatnama executed by the appellant) is, no doubt, mandatory. But it does not mean that non-compliance should result in automatic rejection of the appeal without an opportunity to the appellant to rectify the defect. If and when the defect is noticed or pointed out, the court should, either on an application by the appellant or suo motu, permit the appellant to rectify the defect by either signing the memorandum of appeal or by furnishing the vakalatnama. It should also be kept in view that if the pleader signing the memorandum of appeal 17 has appeared for the party in the trialcourt, then he need not present a fresh Vakalatnama along with the memorandum of t appeal, as the Vakalatnama in his favour filed in the trial court will be sufficient authority to sign and present the memorandum of appeal having regard to Rule 4(2) of Order 3 CPC, read with Explanation [c] thereto. In such an event, a mere memo referring to the authority given to him in the trial court may be sufficient. However, filing a fresh Vakalatnama with the memo of appeal will always be convenient to facilitate the processing of the appeal by the office. 17.Non-compliance with any procedural requirement relating to a pleading, memorandum of appeal or application or petition for relief should not entail automatic dismissal or rejection, unless the relevant statute or rule so mandates. Procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice. Procedure, a hand-maiden to justice, should never be made a tool to deny justice or perpetuate injustice, by any oppressive or punitive use. The well recognized exceptions to this principle are :- i) where the Statute prescribing the procedure, also prescribes specifically the consequence of non- compliance. ii) where the procedural defect is not rectified, even after it is pointed out and due opportunity is given for rectifying it; 18 iii) where the non-compliance or violation is proved to be deliberate or mischievous; iv) where the rectification of defect would affect the case on merits or will affect the jurisdiction of the court. v) in case of Memorandum of Appeal, there is complete absence of authority and the appeal is presented without the knowledge, consent and authority of the appellant.” 18. In the present case, the eviction application was accepted by the learned Rent Controlling Authority, registered and adjudicated on merits, and at no stage was any objection raised regarding verification by the respondent-tenant. Therefore, the learned Rent Control Tribunal could not have set aside the eviction order solely on such curable procedural defect without first affording opportunity to the petitioner-landlord to rectify the same 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pratap Singh (Supra) has also deprecated an over-technical approach in procedural matters and has held that substance must prevail over mere form. It has been observed that while certain procedural requirements may be mandatory and go to the root of the matter, others are merely directory in nature, and breach thereof can be overlooked where there is substantial compliance and no prejudice is caused to the opposite party. The Court has emphasized that where the legislature does not expressly declare a provision to be 19 mandatory, the Court must adopt a practical and commonsense approach in determining whether substantial compliance would suffice. In the present case, since the eviction application was signed by the landlord and supported by a duly sworn affidavit, there was substantial compliance with the procedural requirement, and no prejudice has been shown to have been caused to the respondent-tenant merely because formal verification was not appended in the prescribed manner. 20. A similar principle was also laid down by the Ajmer High Court in the matter of Mst. Sobhag Kanwar reported in AIR 1949 Ajmer 37, wherein it was held that where a defect in verification is noticed, the proper course for the Court is to grant an opportunity to the party concerned to amend and cure the defect rather than dismissing the proceeding on that ground alone. It was further observed that defective verification, being a curable irregularity, ought not to result in rejection of the application without first affording an opportunity for rectification. 21. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, even assuming that there was any defect in verification of the eviction application, the learned Rent Control Tribunal ought to have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner-landlord to cure the defect instead of setting aside the eviction order solely on such technical ground. 20 22. A similar view has also been expressed by the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Bal Mukund Persad Gupta and Others vs. Mathura Prasa AIR 2002 ALLAHABAD 363, wherein it has been observed that Courts should not decide matters on mere technicalities and ought to decide cases on merits so as to do substantial justice between the parties. While taking the said view, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pratap Singh (Supra), reiterating the principle that procedural requirements should not be allowed to defeat the cause of substantive justice. 23. Furthermore Karnataka High Court in the matter of Ramesh B. Nyamagowdar has held vide para 14 as under:- “14.Another contention of learned counsel for appellant is that there is no verification in the plaint and the plaintiff has not affixed his signature in the verification column and therefore the plaint is bad in law and requires to be rejected. The appellants who are the legal representatives of the deceased defendant have not taken the said contention in the written statement. They have taken the said contention for the first time before the appellate Court. On perusal of the plaint it is clear that the plaintiff has affixed his signature at the end of each page and at the end of the plaint. The plaintiff has not affixed his signature in verification column. As per Rule 15, Order VI of Code of Civil Procedure every pleading shall be verified at the foot by the 21 party or by one of the parties pleading or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case and the verification shall be signed by the person making it and shall state the date on which and the place at which it was signed. The person verifying it required to specify by reference to the numbered paragraphs of the pleading, what he verifies of his own knowledge and what he verifies upon information received and believed to be true. In the present case the plaint does not contain the signature of the plaintiff in the verification column which is at the foot of the plaint. There is an omission in that regard. Omission to verify or defective verification is a mere irregularity as it does not affect the merits of the case or jurisdiction of the Court within Section 99 Code of Civil Procedure. A decree shall not be reversed or verified merely because there has been an error, defect or irregularity in any proceedings in the suit. But where an error, defect or irregularity is of such importance as to affecting the merits of the case or jurisdiction it becomes a material irregularity justifying the interference of the Court. Non-signing of a plaint by the plaintiff or signing of a plaint by a person not authorized is not a matter affecting the merits of the case or jurisdiction of the Court. As per Section 99 Code of Civil Procedure no decree shall be reversed or substantially varied, nor shall any case be remanded, in appeal on account of any misjoinder or non-joinder of parties or causes 22 of action or any error, defect or irregularity in any proceedings in the suit, not affecting the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court. There is an omission of verification in the present case and it does not affect the merits of the case or jurisdiction. Therefore, the decree shall not be reversed or varied nor shall the case be remanded in appeal on account of such omission.” 24. In the present case also, the objection regarding non- verification was admittedly not raised either before the learned Rent Controlling Authority or before the learned Rent Control Tribunal at the appropriate stage, and therefore, the learned Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the eviction order solely on such technical ground. 25. Considering the laws laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by various High Courts in the aforesaid decisions on this aspect, this Court is of the considered opinion that though the eviction application was not formally verified in the prescribed manner, the same was duly supported by an affidavit wherein the contents and paragraphs of the eviction application were specifically affirmed and verified by the landlord. Therefore, there was substantial compliance with the procedural requirement contemplated under Rule 2 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Adaptation Rules, 2016. 23 26. It is also an admitted position that no objection regarding non- verification of the eviction application was raised by the tenant before the learned Rent Controlling Authority. Even after the order of eviction was passed, no such specific ground was taken by the tenant before the learned Rent Control Tribunal in the memorandum of appeal. In such circumstances, such objection, being purely procedural in nature, could not have been permitted to be raised at a later stage so as to defeat substantive rights already adjudicated upon on merits. A procedural defect of this nature is curable and cannot be made a ground to dismiss an otherwise maintainable proceeding, particularly when no prejudice has been caused to the opposite party. 27. If at all such defect was noticed at the initial stage, the learned Rent Controlling Authority ought to have pointed out the same and granted an opportunity to the landlord to cure the defect. Once the eviction application was accepted, registered and adjudicated upon, and no objection was raised by the tenant at the relevant stage, the learned Rent Control Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the eviction order on its own on such technical ground alone. 28. Though the learned Appellate Tribunal has considered the merits of the matter, it has ultimately allowed the appeal of the tenant solely on the technical ground of non-verification, which is 24 not in accordance with law and is palpably illegal on the face of the record. 29. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal is hereby set aside and the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controlling Authority is affirmed. 30. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent-tenant prays for grant of reasonable time to vacate the rented premises in view of affirmation of the eviction order. 31. The prayer so made appears to be fair and reasonable. 32. Accordingly, four months’ time is granted to the tenant to vacate the suit premises, subject to filing an affidavit before the learned Rent Controlling Authority within fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, undertaking therein that the suit premises shall be vacated peacefully within the aforesaid period and that no third-party interest shall be created during the said period. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Vishakha