1. Present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by petitioner, who is aggrieved by the order dated 20.02.2024, Annexure P-4, by which the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) has dismissed the application for condoning delay in filing appeal against the order dated 28.7.2023 passed by the Rent Control Authority, Bilaspur in Case No.32/A-90 (7)/2022-23 and consequently dismissed appeal also.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent filed an application under Section 12 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act 2011 (for short ‘the Act of 2011’) seeking eviction of petitioner herein from the premises in question and arrears of rent. Upon receipt of summons, petitioner appeared before the Rent Control Authority through his counsel and filed reply. Based on pleadings of the parties, issues were framed on 3.4.2023 and thereafter the case was fixed for recording of evidence of the parties. However, petitioner or counsel engaged by him stopped appearing thereafter and accordingly, an ex-parte order was passed against the petitioner on 28.7.2023. On 20.9.2023, petitioner filed an appeal under Section 13 of the Act of 2011 along with an application for condonation of delay on the ground that he came to know about eviction order only upon service of notice of execution proceeding. The Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay as also appeal on the ground that the same is barred by limitation recording that petitioner was aware of the proceeding since before, therefore, reason assigned for condoning the delay in filing appeal that he came to know for the first time about the case on 14.09.2023, is not proper.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was not having knowledge of the impugned order dated 28.7.2023 passed ex-parte. Petitioner came to know about the eviction order for the first time when, notice of execution proceeding initiated by respondent was received by him. Just after knowledge of order of eviction, petitioner immediately filed the appeal as well as application for condoning delay. However, learned Tribunal disbelieved the reason assigned for condoning delay by adopting a very rigid approach and rejected application of petitioner seeking condonation of delay as also the appeal.

He submits that present is not the case where petitioner avoided service of eviction proceeding or after service of notice has avoided the Court. Rather, after service of notice of eviction proceeding, petitioner caused his appearance, engaged a counsel and submitted reply also, which show petitioner’s intention to defend the case. Therefore, it cannot be said that delay occurred in filing appeal is deliberate or on account of negligence on the part of petitioner. He further submits that the pleadings in an application for condonation of delay are required to be interpreted liberally and in a justice-oriented manner, the Courts should examine the substance and bona fides of the explanation offered for delay caused rather than adopt a pedantic or hyper-technical approach. In these circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay in preferring appeal, which is not inordinate.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent supports the impugned order and opposes submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner. He submits that the absence of the petitioner was willful in nature just to avoid passing of decree of eviction against him. Petitioner is duty bound to explain the delay of each and every day and from the contents of application for condonation of delay it is clear that petitioner did not properly explain the delay caused even after 14.09.2023. The Tribunal has assigned just and proper reason for rejecting the application for condonation of delay, which does not call for interference.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available in