The High Court of Chhattisgarh, in a significant ruling, has dismissed a writ petition challenging the orders of the Rent Control Tribunal and Authority, holding that where a title dispute is pending before a competent civil court and statutory authorities have recorded concurrent findings on factual aspects, the writ court should not interfere in its supervisory jurisdiction.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru upheld the dismissal of an eviction application filed by a woman against her own husband and his siblings, noting that mere ownership does not automatically establish a jural relationship of landlord and tenant, especially within a family context.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Smt. Halima Begam, filed proceedings before the Rent Control Authority under Section 12(2), Schedule II of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011. She sought the eviction of her husband (Respondent No. 1) and his five brothers (Respondents No. 2 to 6) from a shop admeasuring 280 sq. ft. in Raipur and the recovery of arrears of rent.
According to the petitioner, the property originally belonged to one Radhabai, from whom she purchased it via a registered sale deed dated February 14, 2000. She claimed that her father-in-law, late Nazir Ahmad, had been a tenant of the previous owner since 1977-78 at a monthly rent of $₹ 110$. Following his death, his legal heirs (the respondents) continued the business “Ahmed Kirana Stores” in the shop. The petitioner asserted that upon her purchase of the property, the respondents became her tenants by operation of law but failed to pay rent regularly, accumulating arrears.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Submissions: Represented by Senior Advocate Manoj Paranjpe, the petitioner argued that the respondents had admitted the original tenancy under the previous owner and their continued possession. She contended that:
- Under Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a transferee of the lessor steps into the shoes of the original landlord.
- The absence of a written rent agreement is not fatal to eviction proceedings, relying on Utsav Dey vs. Sushil Kumar Bhadraja.
- The authorities failed to appreciate categorical admissions regarding the original tenancy and her ownership.
Respondents’ Submissions: Counsel for the respondents argued that the dispute was essentially a family matter regarding joint family property. They contended that:
- The property was purchased in the petitioner’s name using joint family income from “Ahmed Kirana Stores” without the consent of other members.
- They denied any landlord-tenant relationship and asserted they were in possession as co-owners.
- There was no documentary evidence of rent payment or attornment for over 15 years.
- A civil suit regarding the title of the property was already under appeal (FA No. 18 of 2024).
Court’s Analysis
The Court noted that while the Rent Control Authority acknowledged the petitioner’s ownership based on the sale deed, it had correctly identified that “mere ownership… does not automatically establish a jural relationship of landlord-tenant.”
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 Court further emphasized that for nearly 15 years after the alleged purchase, the petitioner had neither demanded rent nor issued any notice treating the respondents as tenants. The Bench remarked:
“The relationship of the petitioner with the respondents is also having importance to decide the landlord tenant relation.”
Referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Deepak Tandon & Anr. vs. Rajesh Kumar Gupta (2019) 5 SCC 537, the High Court reiterated that concurrent findings of facts by two lower courts are binding on the writ court and not open to interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.
The Decision
The High Court concluded that since a First Appeal (FA No. 18 of 2024) regarding the title of the property is pending before it, the statutory authorities were justified in declining relief under the summary provisions of the Rent Control Act.
The Court held:
“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.”
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. The Court clarified that any observations made in this judgment would not prejudice the rights of the parties in the pending First Appeal.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Smt. Halima Begam vs. Rafiq Ahmad & Others
- Case No: WPC No. 1752 of 2023
- Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur
- Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha & Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
- Order Date: March 11, 2026
