Curable Procedural Defects Should Not Be Allowed To Defeat Substantive Rights Of Parties: Chhattisgarh High Court Reiterates

The Chhattisgarh High Court has reiterated that procedural defects or irregularities, which are curable in nature, should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights of parties or to perpetuate injustice.While finding fault with the recourse adopted by the Rent Control Tribunal, the Division Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held –“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.”Factual BackgroundThe disputed land consisting of a house was purchased by the petitioners from the respondent no. 2 and thereafter, the said house was given on rent by the petitioners to the respondent no. 1. However, the respondent no.1 failed to pay the rent since the very beginning and refused to vacate the house in spite of repeated requests made by the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners preferred an application under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 before the Authority/SDO(R), Champa for eviction of the respondents. Pursuant to the application, the Authority issued notice to the respondent. The respondent appeared but denied the contention raised by the petitioner and stated that in absence of any agreement, the petitioners' application is not maintainable.After hearing the parties, the Authority passed an order directing eviction of the respondent and to make payment of Rs.28,000/- towards arrears of rent to the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent No.1 preferred an appeal under Section 13 of the Act before the Tribunal.The Tribunal held that the procedure enumerated under the Act was not followed by the SDO and no issues were framed and no evidence was called to prove such issue. The Tribunal also found that though affidavits of two witnesses were taken, but on which date the said affidavits were taken on record that has not been mentioned. Accordingly, it set aside the order passed by the Authority/SDO(R). Court's ObservationUpon perusing Section 10 of the Act, the Court said, it is clear that for the purpose of discharging their functions under the Act, the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while trying a suit or an appeal.It held that the Tribunal has rightly observed that though affidavits of two witnesses have been produced but there is no entry in the order sheet as to on which date the same have been taken on record. The Authority also did not frame issues and also failed to provide opportunity to the parties to lead evidence to prove the issue framed by the Authority.However, the Court was of the considered view that the Tribunal ought to have remanded back the matter to the Authority/SDO (R) for a fresh decision rather than setting aside the order of the authority.“Though there is no illegality or infirmity in the observation made by the Tribunal, but the Tribunal instead of remanding back the matter to the Authority/SDO (R) for fresh adjudication, set aside the order of the Authority without appreciating the fact that 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 added.The Division Bench, speaking through Justice Guru, placed reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon, Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh & Anr. and Ramnath Exports Private Limited v. Vinita Mehta & Anr., wherein it is commonly observed that procedural defects and irregularities, which are curable, should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights.Resultantly, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to file a fresh application under the Act before the Rent Control Authority, which was directed to be decided afresh in accordance with law.Case Title: Krishna Kumar Kahaar & Anr. v. Dashoda Bai Dhivar & Anr.LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (CH) 55Case No: WP227 No. 467 of 2023Date of Judgment: December 11, 2024Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, AdvocateCounsel for the Respondents: Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, Advocate; Mr. Mayank Goyal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, AdvocateClick Here To Read/Download Order

Curable Procedural Defects Should Not Be Allowed To Defeat Substantive Rights Of Parties: Chhattisgarh High Court Reiterates

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags