The High Court of Chhattisgarh has dismissed a writ petition challenging the orders of the Rent Control Tribunal and Authority, observing that where a title dispute is pending before a civil court and statutory authorities have recorded concurrent findings on factual aspects, the writ court should not interfere. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, emphasized that the foundational requirement for eviction proceedings is the establishment of a “landlord” and “tenant” relationship.
Background
The petitioner, Smt. Halima Begam, had instituted proceedings under Section 12(2), Schedule II of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, seeking the eviction of the respondents (her husband and his brothers) and recovery of arrears of rent. She claimed to have purchased a 1500 sq. ft. property in Raipur via a registered sale deed in February 2000.
According to the petitioner, her father-in-law, late Nazir Ahmad, was the original tenant under the previous owner. After his demise, the respondents continued the grocery business in the disputed shop. The petitioner asserted that upon her purchase, the respondents became her tenants by operation of law.
The respondents, however, contested the claim, asserting that the property was joint family property purchased using joint family income in the petitioner’s name. They denied any landlord-tenant relationship and maintained that they occupied the premises as co-owners.
Arguments of the Parties
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that the lower authorities failed to appreciate admissions made by the respondents regarding the original tenancy. He contended that under Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the petitioner, as a transferee of the lessor, stepped into the shoes of the original landlord. He further relied on several judgments, including Utsav Dey Vs. Sushil Kumar Bhadraja, to argue that the absence of a registered rent agreement should not entail the dismissal of eviction proceedings.
Conversely, the respondents argued that the petitioner failed to establish the jural relationship of landlord and tenant. They highlighted that no rent agreement or receipts were produced, and the petitioner had not even entered the witness box to testify, opting instead to examine her son as a power of attorney holder. They also noted that a civil suit regarding the title of the property was already subject to a pending First Appeal before the High Court.
Court’s Analysis
The Court noted that while the Rent Control Authority found the petitioner had proved ownership via the sale deed, it concurrently held that she failed to establish a landlord-tenant relationship. The Bench observed:
“In the absence of clear evidence of attornment, payment of rent, or any documentary proof e.g. rent agreement or rent receipts demonstrating that the respondents recognized the petitioner as the owner of the shop in dispute, the Court rightly held that the relationship of landlord-tenant does not exist between the parties herein.”
The High Court further observed that for nearly 15 years after the alleged purchase, no rent was demanded, and the first notice was only issued in 2015. The Court highlighted that the relationship between the parties—being family members—was significant in determining the nature of their possession.
Regarding the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Deepak Tandon & Anr. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Gupta (2019), noting:
“It is well settled that where issues relating to title are pending adjudication before the competent civil court, and the statutory authorities have recorded concurrent findings on factual aspects, this Court would not reappreciate evidence or disturb such findings in writ jurisdiction.”
Decision
The Division Bench concluded that since a First Appeal (FA No. 18 of 2024) regarding the title of the property is pending before the High Court, and both the Rent Control Authority and Tribunal had concurrently found an absence of proof regarding the landlord-tenant relationship, no interference was warranted.
The writ petition was dismissed, with the Court clarifying that any observations made would not prejudice the rights of the parties in the pending civil appeal.
Case Details
- Case Title: Smt. Halima Begam v. Rafiq Ahmad & Others
- Case No.: WPC No. 1752 of 2023
- Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha & Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
- Judgment Date: March 11, 2026
