2025:CGHC:57721-DB NAFR Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2519 of 2025

1 - M/s Manohar Hardware Mart (Formerly Known As M/s Ferumal And Sons), Through Sanchalak Manohar Motwani, At Dadabaadi Parisar, M.G.

Road, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, C.G.

2 - Manohar Motwani S/o Lt. Parmanand Motwani Aged About 68 Years Sanchalak M/s Manohar Hardware Mart, At Dadabaadi Parisar, M.G. Road, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, C.G.

... Petitioner versus Shri Rishabh Dev Mandir Trust Through Acting President And Trustee Shri Abhay Bhansali, At Rishabh Dev Jain Mandir, Sadar Bazar, Raipur, C.G.

... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Vinay Nagdev, Advocate.

For Respondent : Ms. Aditi Diwan, Advocate.

Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey, J.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

Order on Board

Per , Rajani Dubey , Judge

27.11.2025

1. Heard on admission.

2. The petition being arguable is admitted for hearing.

3. With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally.

4. The petitioners herein had preferred an appeal under Section 13 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (for brevity “Act of 2011”) before the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, C.G., questioning the order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the Rent Controller, Raipur, directing the petitioner to handover the vacant possession of the shop/warehouse located in the premises of Dada Badi M.G. Road, Raipur (C.G.). The said appeal was barred by limitation of 57 days and the Tribunal has dismissed the application holding that sufficient cause has not been shown for each day delay in filing the appeal and consequently the appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 27.02.2025 against which the instant writ petition has been filed.

5. Mr. Vinay Nagdev, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the learned Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the petitioners’ application for condonation of delay and consequently rejecting the appeal of the petitioners as the counsel who was appearing before the Rent Controller did not inform about granting of the application for eviction filed by the landlord on 25.04.2024 and, as such, the delay ought to have been condoned in light of the similar order passed by this Court in WPC No. 2547 of 2025.

6. Ms. Aditi Diwan, learned counsel for the respondent, would support impugned order passed by the Tribunal as well as the order of the Rent Controller and oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners. He would further submit that the delay was deliberately occurred in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, therefore, the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein–above and perused the records meticulously.

8. This Court has observed vide order dated 01.08.2025 in the similar matter passed in WPC No. 2547 of 2025 by this court in paras 8, 9, 10 &

11 as under:-

8. Admittedly, the application for eviction was granted by the Rent Controller on 19.04.2024 in favour of the landlord /respondent herein against which the petitioners/tenants herein preferred the appeal which was barred by 66 days for the reason assigned by learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the counsel who was appearing before the Rent Controller did not inform the petitioners herein about granting of the application of the respondent herein. However, the learned Rent Control Tribunal has held that the each day delay has not been explained by the petitioner herein for not filing the appeal right in time against the order of the Rent Controller though the application for condonation of delay supported by the affidavit.

9. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the pertinent decisions relating to the issue of the present case. In the matter of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy ¹ the Supreme Court has held that there is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate and the

1