The Chhattisgarh High Court, in its judgment dated December 11, 2024, in the case of Krishna Kumar Kahaar & Anr. v. Dashoda Bai Dhivar & Anr. (WP227 No. 467 of 2023), has reaffirmed the established principle that procedural defects, if curable, should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or result in injustice. The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru critically examined the procedural lapses highlighted by the Rent Control Tribunal and provided clear guidance on addressing such irregularities within the framework of justice.

The case revolved around a tenancy dispute under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011. The petitioners, landlords of a residential property in Champa, had rented out the property to Respondent No. 1. It was alleged that the tenant failed to pay rent since the inception of the lease and refused to vacate despite multiple demands. Following these grievances, the landlords approached the Rent Control Authority (SDO-R), seeking eviction and recovery of arrears.

The Rent Control Authority, after reviewing the submissions, ordered the eviction of the tenant and directed the payment of Rs. 28,000 towards rent arrears. Dissatisfied with this order, Respondent No. 1 challenged the decision before the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal under Section 13 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act. The Tribunal, upon evaluating the procedural aspects of the Authority’s decision-making process, identified critical deficiencies, including the failure to frame issues, the absence of opportunities to present evidence, and incomplete record-keeping regarding the affidavits of witnesses.

The Tribunal set aside the Authority’s order, noting procedural violations but did not remand the matter for a fresh decision. This action formed the basis of the writ petition before the High Court. The petitioners argued that while procedural lapses might exist, these should not nullify their substantive rights as landlords seeking redress under the Act.

The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's observations about procedural non-compliance but disagreed with its decision to completely set aside the Authority’s order without remanding the matter for proper adjudication. The Court observed: “It is trite law that the procedural defect may fall within the purview of irregularity and capable of being cured, but it should not be allowed to defeat the substantive right accrued to the litigant without affording a reasonable opportunity.”

The Bench referred to Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, which accords the Rent Controller and Tribunal the same powers as a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court noted that this statutory framework mandates the framing of issues and the provision of opportunities for parties to substantiate their claims. However, procedural shortcomings should not render substantive rights void.

To substantiate its stance, the Court cited landmark rulings by the Supreme Court, including Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon (1969), which underlined the role of procedural rules as aids to justice, not as tools for denial of legitimate claims. It also referred to Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh & Anr. (2006), where the Supreme Court stated that curable procedural defects should not obstruct substantive justice. Similarly, in Ramnath Exports Private Limited v. Vinita Mehta & Anr. (2022), the Apex Court observed that procedural irregularities should never become a basis for denying rightful claims.

The High Court affirmed: “Any wrong committed by the Authority/SDO (R) and any procedural defect should not be attributed to a party, who has approached the authority under a particular statute.” It further clarified that while procedural adherence is crucial, it should not lead to punitive outcomes for parties acting in good faith.

The Court directed the petitioners to refile their application before the Rent Control Authority for fresh adjudication. The Authority was instructed to ensure procedural compliance, including the framing of issues, opportunities for evidence presentation, and transparent record-keeping. The Court also clarified that its observations should not influence the Authority’s reconsideration, ensuring an impartial process.

Case Title: Krishna Kumar Kahaar & Anr. v. Dashoda Bai Dhivar & Anr.
Case Number: WP227 No. 467 of 2023
Bench: Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru