The Chhattisgarh High Court, in its recent ruling on WP(227) No. 467 of 2023, reaffirmed the principle that procedural irregularities should not overshadow substantive rights or result in injustice. The case involved a dispute between landlords Krishna Kumar Kahaar and Shobha Kumari, and their tenant, Dashoda Bai Dhivar, over eviction and arrears of rent.
The division bench, comprising Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, disposed of the writ petition with directions to rectify procedural lapses and revisit the matter for adjudication. The Court emphasized the doctrine that “procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice.”
Background of the Case
The petitioners, Krishna Kumar Kahaar and Shobha Kumari, had purchased a house on a disputed land parcel (Khasra No. 1507/29) in Champa district, Chhattisgarh. The property was leased to the respondent, Dashoda Bai, at a monthly rent of ₹4,000. Alleging non-payment of rent since the tenancy began, the landlords sought eviction through an application filed under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011.
The Rent Control Authority, in its order dated December 12, 2022, directed the eviction of the tenant and ordered payment of ₹28,000 towards rent arrears. However, the tenant successfully challenged the order before the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, which overturned the eviction on procedural grounds.
Issues Before the Court
The petitioners brought the matter to the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, contending that the Tribunal’s decision unfairly ignored substantive issues of unpaid rent and tenancy rights due to procedural defects.
Key legal questions addressed included:
1. Adherence to Procedure: Whether procedural lapses in the original proceedings invalidated the eviction order.
2. Substantive Justice: Whether curable procedural defects should nullify the substantive rights of the landlords.
Court’s Observations
Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, writing the judgment, noted critical shortcomings in the proceedings of the Rent Control Authority, including:
– Failure to frame issues for adjudication.
– Lack of clear documentation of evidence submission.
– Absence of adherence to procedural requirements under Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, which grants the Authority powers equivalent to a civil court.
The High Court criticized the Tribunal for setting aside the eviction order without remanding the matter for fresh adjudication. Quoting the Supreme Court’s precedent in Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh (2006), the Court observed:
“Procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice. Procedure should never be a tool to deny justice or perpetuate injustice.”
Further, the Court highlighted the case of Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon (1969) to underline that procedural rules serve as a means to administer justice rather than frustrate it.
Decision
The High Court disposed of the writ petition with a directive to the landlords to file a fresh application before the Rent Control Authority. It instructed the Authority to adjudicate the matter afresh, strictly following procedural norms and ensuring a fair hearing to both parties.
The bench also clarified that its observations were not to influence the merits of the case and urged the Authority to decide independently.
