### Concurrent findings on non-existence of landlord-tenant relationship are not subject to interference under Article 227.

The petitioner filed an eviction and rent recovery petition under Section 12(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011.

She claimed ownership via a registered sale deed dated 14.02.2000 from the original owner, Radha Bai.

The respondents are the legal heirs of Nazir Ahmad (the petitioner’s father-in-law), who was the original tenant under Radha Bai.

The respondents denied the landlord-tenant relationship, asserting the property was purchased using joint family funds and that they possessed it as co-owners.

The Rent Control Authority dismissed the petition, finding no jural relationship of landlord and tenant.

This was affirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal.

A parallel civil suit regarding title was dismissed, and a First Appeal (FA No. 18/2024) is currently pending before the High Court.

Whether a jural relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the petitioner and the respondents to maintain proceedings under the Act of 2011.

Whether the transferee of a lessor automatically establishes a landlord-tenant relationship with the existing occupants in the absence of attornment or rent payment.

Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 when concurrent findings of fact exist and title is being litigated in a civil court.

The Court applied Sections 2(5) and 2(14) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, which define "landlord" and "tenant" as foundational requirements for jurisdiction.

It considered Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, regarding the rights of a lessor's transferee.

The Court relied on the principle from *Mohinder Kaur v. Sant Paul Singh (2019)* regarding adverse inference when a party fails to enter the witness box.

The Court relied on the principle from *Deepak Tandon v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta (2019)*, which establishes that concurrent findings of fact by lower authorities are generally binding on a writ court under Article 227.

The Court reasoned that while the petitioner proved ownership through a sale deed, ownership alone does not equate to a landlord-tenant relationship under the Act.

For 15 years post-purchase, the petitioner never demanded rent or issued a notice treating the respondents as tenants, and no rent agreement or receipts were produced.

The Court noted the respondents were family members of the original tenant and the petitioner’s own husband was one of the legal heirs, complicating the claim of a clear tenancy.

Since the respondents consistently claimed co-ownership and a First Appeal regarding the title was pending, the Court found the summary proceedings under the Rent Control Act inappropriate for resolving what was essentially a title dispute.

The petitioner’s failure to personally testify further weakened her case.

The High Court declined to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, affirming the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Authority and Tribunal.

The writ petition was dismissed, leaving the parties to resolve the title dispute in the pending First Appeal No. 18/2024.