Ownership Alone Not Enough to Prove Landlord-Tenant Relationship: Chhattisgarh HC

The Chhattisgarh High Court has refused to interfere with concurrent findings of the Rent Control Authority and Appellate Tribunal rejecting a landlord’s eviction plea, holding that mere ownership of a property does not automatically establish a landlord-tenant relationship, particularly in cases involving family disputes and contested title.

The Court further held that in the absence of proof of attornment, payment of rent, or any documentary evidence of tenancy, eviction proceedings under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 are not maintainable.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru dismissed a writ petition challenging orders of the Rent Control Authority and Tribunal, which had refused eviction and recovery of arrears of rent.

The Court held that both authorities had concurrently found absence of a landlord–tenant relationship and such findings of fact do not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The petitioner, claiming to be the owner of a shop property in Raipur by virtue of a registered sale deed executed in 2000, had initiated eviction proceedings under Section 12(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 against the respondents, who were legal heirs of the original tenant.

It was contended that the respondents had defaulted in payment of rent and were liable to be evicted and to pay arrears.

The respondents, however, disputed the very existence of a landlord-tenant relationship.

They contended that the dispute was essentially a family dispute relating to ownership, asserting that the property was purchased in the name of the petitioner from joint family income and that they were in possession as co-owners rather than tenants.

While admitting that their predecessor had been a tenant under the previous owner, they denied any attornment in favour of the petitioner.

The Rent Control Authority, after examining the evidence, recorded a finding that although the petitioner had established ownership through the sale deed, she failed to prove the existence of a landlord–tenant relationship with the respondents.

The Authority noted absence of any rent agreement, rent receipts, or proof of payment of rent, as well as lack of evidence showing that the respondents had recognized the petitioner as their landlord.

The Authority further observed that the parties were closely related and claimed through a common predecessor, and that the dispute had elements of a title conflict rather than a straightforward tenancy issue.

On this basis, the eviction application was dismissed.

Both parties preferred appeals before the Rent Control Tribunal.

The Tribunal affirmed the findings of the Authority, holding that no interference was warranted as neither party had substantiated their claims.

It was also noted that for nearly fifteen years after the alleged purchase of the property, no rent had been demanded from the respondents, which further weakened the petitioner’s case regarding tenancy.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that once ownership and original tenancy were admitted, Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act would operate to vest landlord rights in the transferee, and that absence of a written rent agreement could not defeat eviction proceedings.

The High Court, however, rejected these contentions.

It held that the foundational requirement for invoking eviction jurisdiction under the Rent Control Act is the existence of a landlord–tenant relationship as defined under the statute, and the burden to prove such relationship lies on the petitioner.

The Court observed that both the Rent Control Authority and the Tribunal had thoroughly examined the material on record and found that there was no evidence of attornment, payment of rent, or any conduct indicating recognition of the petitioner as landlord.

It further noted that the dispute between the parties substantially related to ownership and title, and that a civil appeal concerning title was already pending before the High Court.

In such circumstances, the Court held that summary proceedings under the Rent Control Act could not be invoked to adjudicate complex title disputes, and eviction could not be granted in absence of proof of tenancy.

The Court also reiterated the settled principle that concurrent findings of fact recorded by statutory authorities are not to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless they suffer from jurisdictional error or perversity.

Finding no such infirmity, the Court declined to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, leaving it open to the parties to pursue their remedies in the pending civil proceedings.

Case Title: Smt. Halima Begam v. Rafiq Ahmad & Ors.

Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

Date of Judgment: 11.03.2026