NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Digitally VISHAKHA signed by BEOHAR VISHAKHA BEOHAR WP227 No. 379 of 2023 Order Reserved On 27.06.2025 Order Delivered On 06.08.2025

1 - Tavneet Sahni S/o Inderjeet Sahni, Aged About 37 Years Proprietor M/s Avenue, R/o S.F. 7, Magneto Mall, Labhandi, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder Inderjeet Sahni, Aged About 66 Years, R/o Gagan Service Centre, Ring Road, No. 02, Indrint Of Ayappa Mandir Tatibandh, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner versus

1 - Smt. Sangeeta Dhandh W/o Shri Sandeep Dhandh, R/o C-19, Sector-2, Avanti Vihar, Telibandha, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Sandeep Dhandh, Aged About 57 Years, R/o C-19, Sector-2, Avanti Vihar, Telibandha, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

----Respondent -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioner : Mr. Parth Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey and Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

CAV Order

Per, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 13.04.2023 passed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal in appeal no. 67-A/2022 whereby learned Tribunal rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner under section 13 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (herein after referred as the Act, 2011) on the ground that, according to the Order 40 Rule 7 of CPC the order of rejection of the application for review shall not be appealable. The petitioner has not preferred any review application and the learned Rent Control Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the appeal.

2. The petitioner was a tenant in a property regarding which the respondent filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 seeking vacant possession and arrears of rent. Without proper service of notice to the petitioner, the Rent Controlling Authority passed an ex-parte eviction order dated 21.07.2022 in Case No. 43-90(6)/2021-22. The petitioner became aware of this order only on 28.09.2022 when her father, Shri Inderjeet Singh, accidentally came across it while checking the cause list in another matter. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 10(1)(f) of the Act read with Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for recall of the ex-parte order. However, the Rent Controlling Authority, instead of registering the application as a separate proceeding, improperly tagged it with the execution case and rejected it vide non-speaking order dated 21.11.2022 by erroneously treating it as a review application. Against this, the petitioner filed Appeal No. 67-A/2022 under Section 13 of the Act, which was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal on 13.04.2023 on the erroneous ground that an appeal does not lie against an order rejecting a review, despite the fact that the petitioner had never filed a review.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent entered into a Lease Agreement on 05.01.2017 for a commercial space measuring 275 sq. ft. at Shop No. GF 22-B, Ground Floor, Magneto the Mall, GE Road, NH-6, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, at a monthly rent of Rs. 33,350/- for 11 months, which was orally extended from time to time. Due to the COVID-19 lockdown, the petitioner could not pay rent on time, leading the respondent to file an application under Section 12(2) Schedule II Serial No. 11 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 for arrears and possession on 08.03.2022. The respondent deliberately mentioned an incorrect address in the application despite knowing the petitioner's shop location, resulting in notices being improperly served and received by an unrelated employee. Despite improper service, the Rent Controlling Aut