March 12, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a Raipur resident seeking eviction of occupants from a shop and recovery of rent arrears, holding that the petitioner failed to prove that the occupants were her tenants.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru delivered the judgment on 11 March 2026 while hearing a petition filed by Halima Begam. The petition challenged the orders of the Rent Control Authority dated 24 May 2022 and the Rent Control Tribunal dated 24 March 2023, both of which had rejected her eviction request.
The dispute relates to a shop located in Amapara, Raipur. According to the petitioner, she purchased the property through a registered sale deed on 14 February 2000 from the previous owner. The shop had originally been rented in the late 1970s to Nazir Ahmad, who ran a grocery store named “Ahmed Kirana Stores.” After his death, his legal heirs continued running the shop and remained in possession of the premises.
Halima Begam approached the Rent Control Authority under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, seeking eviction of the occupants and recovery of unpaid rent. She argued that once she purchased the property, the existing occupants automatically became her tenants. She also claimed that they had not been paying rent regularly and that a large amount of rent was due.
The respondents disputed these claims and argued that the issue was not a landlord-tenant dispute but a family property matter. They said the property had been purchased using joint family income and that they were in possession as co-owners rather than tenants. They also denied recognizing the petitioner as their landlord.
After examining the evidence, the Rent Control Authority held that although the petitioner had proved ownership through the sale deed, she failed to prove that a landlord-tenant relationship existed between her and the respondents. The authority noted that there were no rent receipts, rent agreements, or any other proof showing that rent had been paid to the petitioner. On this basis, the eviction application was dismissed.
Both sides then filed appeals before the Rent Control Tribunal. After reviewing the record, the Tribunal upheld the findings of the authority and dismissed the appeals, observing that there was no sufficient reason to interfere with the earlier order.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that once ownership of the property was established and the original tenancy was admitted, the law should recognize her as the landlord under Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. However, the respondents maintained that the essential requirement of proving a landlord-tenant relationship had not been met.
The High Court agreed with the reasoning of the lower authorities. The Bench observed that ownership alone does not automatically prove a landlord-tenant relationship, especially when the dispute involves family members and questions of property ownership.
The court also noted that for nearly fifteen years after purchasing the property, the petitioner had not demanded rent or produced any evidence showing that the respondents had accepted her as their landlord.
Another important factor considered by the court was that a separate civil case regarding ownership of the property had already been decided by a lower court and was pending in appeal before the High Court. In such a situation, the court said that proceedings under the Rent Control Act cannot be used to decide complex disputes relating to property title.
The Bench further stated that when two statutory authorities have reached the same factual conclusion, the High Court should not interfere in its supervisory jurisdiction unless there is a clear legal error. Since no such error was found, the writ petition was dismissed.
The court clarified that the parties are free to pursue their claims in the pending appeal related to the property title and that the observations made in this case will not affect those proceedings.
Case: WPC No. 1752 of 2023 – Smt. Halima Begam vs Rafiq Ahmad & Others
