The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that mere apprehension of arrest in a criminal proceeding does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, where the party had ample notice and opportunity to participate in the rent control proceedings but remained negligent. The Division Bench dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging the Rent Control Tribunal's refusal to condone a six-month delay in filing an appeal against an eviction order.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Suresh Mishra, was a tenant occupying commercial premises owned by the respondent, Smt. Chandabai Agrawal, in Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. The respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 12 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 ("Act, 2011") before the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Authority ("RCA") seeking eviction of the petitioner. The petitioner appeared and participated in the proceedings through counsel.
Key Facts
- The petitioner remained absent before the RCA on 6.11.2024, prompting the RCA to direct issuance of fresh notice
- The petitioner appeared pursuant to the fresh notice
- The petitioner again remained absent on 6.8.2025, leading to another fresh notice
- The petitioner appeared pursuant to this notice as well
- On 13.8.2025, the RCA posted the case to a subsequent date without recording the petitioner's appearance
- In the meantime, a criminal proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and he apprehended arrest
- The petitioner alleged he intimated his counsel to take appropriate steps in the RCA proceeding until he obtained bail
- Due to the petitioner's absence, he was set ex parte on 8.9.2025
- No notice was served on the petitioner after the ex parte order
- The matter was posted to 24.9.2025 for hearing, when the respondent's arguments were recorded
- The matter was posted to 8.10.2025 and final order of eviction was passed by the RCA on 15.10.2025
- The petitioner surrendered before the trial court in the criminal proceeding on 13.03.2026 pursuant to Supreme Court direction
- The petitioner was released on bail on 19.03.2026
- After release, the petitioner contacted counsel and filed appeal under Section 13(1) of the Act, 2011 on 21.04.2026
- The appeal was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
Procedural History
- 8.9.2025: Petitioner set ex parte by RCA
- 15.10.2025: RCA passed final order of eviction
- 13.03.2026: Petitioner surrendered before trial court in criminal proceeding
- 19.03.2026: Petitioner released on bail
- 21.04.2026: Petitioner filed appeal before Rent Control Tribunal with Section 5 Limitation Act application
- 09.09.2026: Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur dismissed the Section 5 application
- 2026: Present writ petition (WP227 No. 1367 of 2026) filed before High Court under Article 227
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (a) quashing of the Tribunal's order dated 09.09.2026 dismissing the Section 5 application; (b) remittal of the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the Section 5 application and the accompanying appeal in accordance with law and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan and Collector, Land Acquisition; and (c) such other relief as the Court deemed fit.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether apprehension of arrest in a separate criminal proceeding constitutes "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 13(1) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, where the party had received repeated notices and opportunities to participate in the rent control proceedings but failed to avail them.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari submitted that the petitioner was not provided ample opportunity of hearing as required under Section 10 of the Act, 2011. He argued that the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 does not strictly apply to proceedings under the Act, 2011, and the Rent Control Tribunal should have adopted a liberal approach in condoning the delay. The petitioner's absence was due to apprehension of arrest in a criminal proceeding, and he had intimated his counsel to take steps until bail was obtained. Upon release on bail, the appeal was filed immediately on 21.04.2026. Reliance was placed on the coordinate bench decision in Deepak Sona vs. Amolak Singh Bhatia (WP(227) No. 340 of 2024, decided 25.04.2024), where the Court held that "sufficient cause" must be construed liberally to advance substantial justice, especially when delay is not deliberate or mala fide.
For the Respondent
No appearance was made on behalf of the respondent. The Court proceeded on the basis of the record and the petitioner's submissions.
The Court's Analysis
The Division Bench, per Chief Justice Krushna Ram Mohapatra, examined the factual matrix chronologically. The Court noted that on 8.9.2025, the petitioner was set ex parte after multiple absences on 6.11.2024 and 6.8.2025, each time followed by fresh notices issued by the RCA. The Court observed that issuance of notice on each day of posting is not prescribed under the Act, 2011, and since the petitioner had engaged a lawyer and participated in the proceeding, it was his responsibility to be diligent in defending his case.
The Court emphasized that even after the ex parte order on 8.9.2025, the petitioner took no step to set aside the ex parte order and allowed the RCA to pass the final eviction order on 15.10.2025. Critically, by that time the petitioner was not in custody. The petitioner surrendered before the trial court only on 13.03.2026 (over four months after the final order) pursuant to Supreme Court direction, and was released on bail on 19.03.2026. The Court found that the petitioner had sufficient opportunity either to pray for setting aside the ex parte order before the RCA or to file the appeal within the stipulated period.
The Court held that "plea of apprehension of arrest cannot be a ground for condonation of delay in filing the appeal." The petitioner was at liberty to file the appeal within the prescribed period as he had sufficient knowledge of the proceedings. No plausible explanation was offered for the delay.
Addressing the precedent relied upon, the Court acknowledged the ratio in Deepak Sona but distinguished it on facts. In Deepak Sona, the petitioners had not been properly served with notices, whereas here the RCA had issued repeated notices and provided ample opportunity. The Court stated: "A party not availing opportunity provided to him in a proceeding cannot complain non-compliance of principle of natural justice."* The RCA had complied with Section 10 of the Act, 2011 in its letter and spirit.
The Court articulated the governing principle: "The explanation offered for condonation of delay should be construed liberally, but a person who is thoroughly negligent and not at all diligent in participating in the litigation and avoiding the court proceeding does not deserve such leniency of the Court."* Finding the petitioner "thoroughly negligent in participating in the proceedings, despite having sufficient notice and opportunity,"* the Court concluded no merit existed in the writ petition.
The Verdict
The writ petition was dismissed. The Court upheld the Rent Control Tribunal's order dated 09.09.2026 dismissing the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appeal filed by the petitioner on 21.04.2026 against the RCA's eviction order dated 15.10.2025 (a delay of approximately six months) remains barred by limitation. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Apprehension of Arrest Is Not Automatic Sufficient Cause
The judgment clarifies that a party's subjective fear of arrest in an unrelated criminal proceeding does not, by itself, constitute "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning delay in civil appellate proceedings. Practitioners must demonstrate that the apprehension actually prevented the party from taking legal steps, not merely that it existed. Where the party had knowledge of the proceedings and access to counsel, the burden to show actual impediment is high.
Diligence Trumps Liberal Construction
While courts must construe "sufficient cause" liberally to advance substantial justice, this liberality does not extend to parties who are "thoroughly negligent" in participating in proceedings. The judgment establishes a clear threshold: repeated notices, engagement of counsel, and knowledge of the proceedings create an obligation of diligence. Failure to take any step - not even filing a setting-aside application after an ex parte order - for months after the final order, while not in custody, constitutes negligence that defeats condonation.
Procedural Compliance Under Rent Control Act Satisfies Natural Justice
The Court's finding that the RCA complied with Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 "in its letter and spirit" by issuing repeated notices - even though daily notice issuance is not statutorily mandated - reinforces that statutory procedural compliance, coupled with actual notice and opportunity, satisfies natural justice requirements. A party cannot claim violation of natural justice when they voluntarily absent themselves despite proper service.
- Practical takeaway: In rent control appeals, file the appeal within the statutory period or immediately file a setting-aside application if proceeded against ex parte. Do not wait for resolution of collateral criminal matters.
- Practical takeaway: When opposing condonation applications, emphasize the party's knowledge of proceedings, engagement of counsel, repeated notices, and failure to take any remedial step during the delay period.
- Practical takeaway: Distinguish liberal-construction precedents by demonstrating the applicant had actual notice and opportunity but chose not to act.
