High Court Can’t Reappreciate Evidence Under Article 227 When Title Dispute Is Pending And Authorities Recorded Concurrent Findings: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging the orders passed by the Rent Control Authority and the Rent Control Tribunal, which dismissed eviction proceedings filed under Section 12(2) read with Schedule II of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, while stating 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”, examined the facts and material and accordingly observed: “in view of the pendency of the First Appeal before this Court bearing FA No.18 of 2024 arising out of the civil suit concerning title, and in light of the concurrent findings recorded by the statutory authorities regarding absence of proof of landlord–tenant relationship as contemplated under Sections 2(5), 2(14) and 12(2) of the Act of 2011, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is warranted in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India”.

Background

The dispute arose from eviction proceedings initiated by the petitioner before the Rent Control Authority seeking eviction of the respondents from a shop property and recovery of arrears of rent. The petitioner claimed ownership of the property on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 14.02.2000 and asserted that the respondents were tenants under the previous owner, whose tenancy had devolved upon them after the death of their predecessor.

According to the petitioner, the disputed shop originally belonged to earlier owners whose property was partitioned, and the portion containing the shop was subsequently purchased by the petitioner. It was further asserted that the respondents’ predecessor had taken the shop on rent from the previous owner and had been running a grocery business there. After his death, the respondents continued in possession of the premises and carried on the business.

The petitioner alleged that the respondents failed to pay rent regularly and that arrears had accumulated. A legal notice was issued demanding payment of arrears and vacant possession, but the respondents disputed the petitioner’s ownership and refused to comply, leading to the eviction application.

The respondents contested the eviction proceedings by asserting that the dispute was essentially a family dispute and not a landlord–tenant dispute. They denied the existence of any landlord–tenant relationship between the parties and claimed that the property constituted joint family property.

Although the respondents admitted that their predecessor had been a tenant under the original owner, they contended that the property had been purchased in the name of the petitioner out of joint family income and therefore the petitioner could not claim independent ownership or landlord status.

The respondents further asserted that the petitioner had failed to produce any documentary evidence, such as rent agreements or receipts, to establish that the respondents had ever attorned to her as landlord after the alleged purchase of the property.

The Rent Control Authority framed several issues, including ownership of the property, existence of a landlord–tenant relationship, service of statutory notice, entitlement to eviction and arrears of rent.

While the Authority accepted that the petitioner had established ownership of the property on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 14.02.2000, it held that ownership alone was insufficient to establish a landlord–tenant relationship. The Authority noted that the parties belonged to the same family and that the respondents were successors of the original tenant.

In the absence of evidence such as rent agreements, rent receipts, proof of payment of rent or any evidence showing that the respondents had recognised the petitioner as landlord, the Authority concluded that the relationship of landlord and tenant was not proved. Consequently, the eviction application and claim for arrears of rent were dismissed.

Both parties challenged the order before the Rent Control Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, dismissed both appeals, holding that neither party had established grounds for interference with the findings of the Rent Control Authority.

Court’s Observation

Examining the material on record, the High Court observed that eviction proceedings under Section 12(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act can be maintained only where the foundational requirement of a “landlord” and a “tenant,” as defined under Sections 2(5) and 2(14) of the Act, is established.

The Court noted that although the petitioner had proved ownership of the premises, the statutory authorities had concurrently held that the petitioner failed to prove the existence of a landlord–tenant relationship with the respondents. The absence of documentary evidence of rent payment, attornment or any tenancy arrangement was specifically considered by the authorities.

The Court also observed that for nearly fifteen years after the alleged purchase of the property, no rent was demanded from the respondents, and even the legal notice issued later claimed arrears only for the preceding three years. These circumstances were considered by the Tribunal in affirming the finding that tenancy had not been established.

Further, the Court noted that the dispute between the parties substantially related to title over the property and that a civil suit regarding the same had already been adjudicated, with a First Appeal pending before the High Court.

Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Deepak Tandon v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, the Court reiterated that concurrent findings of fact recorded by subordinate authorities are binding and ordinarily cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.

The Court therefore held that in view of the pending title dispute and the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Authority and Tribunal regarding absence of proof of landlord–tenant relationship, no interference was warranted in supervisory jurisdiction.

Conclusion

The High Court concluded that where issues relating to title are pending before the competent civil court and the statutory authorities have recorded concurrent findings on factual aspects, the writ court would not reappreciate evidence or disturb such findings under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, while clarifying that any observations made in the proceedings would not prejudice the rights of the parties in the pending first appeal concerning title.

Cause Title: Halima Begum v. Rafiq Ahmad & Ors.

Click here to read/download Judgment