The Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 deliberately took rent litigation out of the ordinary civil court and handed it to a dedicated, time-bound adjudicatory machinery: the Rent Controller at the district level and a Rent Control Tribunal above it. The statute promises a summary, natural-justice-driven process that ordinarily concludes within six months. Yet its most ambitious procedural feature — a statutory appeal running straight to the Supreme Court under Section 13(2) — was struck down by a Constitution Bench in Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala, reshaping the appellate map. This note walks through the entire procedure before the Rent Controller, from constitution and jurisdiction to application, hearing, orders, execution and appeal.
The procedural scheme: a deliberate shift away from the civil court
The 2011 Act (which came into force in the State on 6 November 2012) was a conscious break from the older rent-control model under which the civil court tried eviction and rent suits and the High Court heard revisions. The Preamble records the object of providing for the adjudication of matters relating to rent by a Tribunal and of balancing landlord and tenant interests to encourage leasing. To achieve speed, the legislature created a two-tier specialist forum — the Rent Controller (Section 7) and the Rent Control Tribunal (Section 8) — and expressly freed them from the rigour of the Code of Civil Procedure while binding them to natural justice. Understanding this design is the gateway to the whole statute; the subject hub and the introduction set out the policy backdrop, while this note concentrates on how a dispute actually moves through the Controller's hands.
Constitution of the Rent Controller (Section 7)
Section 7 directs that for every district the State Government shall appoint one or more officers, not below the rank of a Deputy Collector, as Rent Controller, with territorial jurisdiction as specified. The choice of a revenue officer of Deputy Collector rank — rather than a judicial officer — signals that the legislature intended an administrative-cum-adjudicatory authority capable of swift, hands-on dispute resolution rather than a court bound by formal trial procedure. The Rent Controller functions subordinate to, and under the superintendence of, the Rent Control Tribunal, which under Section 8 is charged with ensuring the active functioning of Controllers at all times and with sitting as the appellate authority over their orders. The pairing of an administrative-rank adjudicator below and a Tribunal above is the structural backbone of the Act's procedure.
Jurisdiction, powers and functions (Section 9)
Section 9 defines what the Rent Controller does within its territorial jurisdiction: reconciling disputes between landlord and tenant, securing the rights available to them under the Act, and enforcing the obligations the Act casts on each side. This is a wide, purpose-driven mandate covering fixation and revision of rent, permitted increases, recovery of arrears, deposit of rent, and eviction. The substantive heads that the Controller adjudicates are taken up in the companion notes on standard rent fixation and revision and grounds for eviction of a tenant. Crucially, Section 9 also fixes the headline time discipline of the Act: all proceedings before the Rent Controller shall ordinarily conclude within six months from the date of first appearance of the respondent. That six-month outer limit is the procedural promise that distinguishes this forum from the open-ended civil suit it replaced.
Initiating proceedings: the application and pleadings
Proceedings before the Controller are commenced by an application in the prescribed form, not by a plaint. The applicant — landlord or tenant, depending on the relief — sets out the accommodation, the tenancy, the relief claimed (for instance eviction on a ground in Section 12, fixation of standard rent, or recovery of arrears) and the supporting facts. Whether the application discloses a tenable claim is tested against the relevant substantive provision: an eviction application, for example, must plead one of the enumerated grounds discussed under eviction grounds, since the Controller has no general equity to evict outside the statute. On the respondent appearing, the six-month clock under Section 9 begins, and the matter proceeds to a summary trial of the disputed issues. Because the Act expressly contemplates that the forum will reconcile disputes, the Controller may attempt settlement before recording evidence, but a failed reconciliation does not stall the statutory timeline.
Summary procedure and natural justice (Section 10)
Section 10 is the procedural heart of the Act. It declares that the Rent Controller (and the Tribunal) shall not be bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and may regulate their own procedure — but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice. Freedom from the CPC is not freedom from fairness: the parties must get notice, an opportunity to file pleadings and documents, a chance to lead and test evidence, and a reasoned order. The Act also reflects a strong anti-delay policy through a tight leash on adjournments — adjournments are not to be granted as a matter of course and require a written request with reasons recorded in writing. This combination of CPC-exemption, natural justice and adjournment-control is what allows the Controller to honour the six-month outer limit while still passing an order that can withstand supervisory scrutiny by the High Court.
Borrowed powers of a civil court
Although freed from CPC procedure, the Rent Controller is not a toothless administrator. Section 10 invests the Controller (and the Tribunal) with the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while trying a suit, in respect of the matters that make adjudication possible: summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; requiring the discovery and production of documents; issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses; and setting aside an order of dismissal for default or an order passed ex parte. The power to set aside a default or ex-parte order is significant procedurally, because it gives the Controller an internal restoration jurisdiction so that a party shut out without a hearing can be brought back without having to climb to the appellate forum. These borrowed powers ensure the summary forum can compel evidence and run a real, if streamlined, trial.
The final order and deposit conditions
At the close of the hearing the Controller passes a reasoned final order — fixing or revising rent, directing deposit of arrears, granting or refusing eviction, or determining a permitted increase. The substantive controls on rent that the order applies are explained in the notes on permitted increases in rent and standard rent. Because the Act is a tenant-protection and landlord-balancing statute, the order frequently carries conditions — for example, that a tenant continue depositing rent during and after the proceeding, failing which the protection of the statute may be lost. The order is the operative document that the execution machinery in Section 11 then enforces, and it is the order against which the right of appeal under Section 13 is exercised.
Execution of orders (Section 11)
The Act keeps execution within the Controller's own hands rather than sending the decree-holder to a separate executing court. Section 11 empowers the Rent Controller to enforce a final order through the familiar coercive modes — attachment and sale of movable or immovable property; arrest and detention of the opposite party; attachment of one or more bank accounts; attachment of the salary and allowance of a government servant; appointment of an advocate as Commissioner; and delivery of possession of the premises to the applicant. The Controller may requisition help from the local administration, local body or the police to give effect to an order, particularly for delivery of possession. To discourage a tenant from clinging on after an eviction order, Section 11 also imposes enhanced mesne profits — at multiples of the rent — where the premises are not vacated within the time fixed. Reflecting the Act's speed imperative, execution is to be conducted in a summary manner and the execution application disposed of within forty-five days from service of notice on the opposite party.
Appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal (Section 13)
The first tier of challenge lies under Section 13(1): a landlord or tenant aggrieved by any order of the Rent Controller has the right to appeal, in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time, to the Rent Control Tribunal. The Tribunal, constituted under Section 8, sits as the appellate authority and exercises powers comparable to those once exercised by the High Court under the repealed rent law, including, in the statutory scheme, the power to punish for contempt of its authority as if it were a High Court. The Tribunal can re-examine the Controller's findings of fact and law within the four corners of the Act, making it the effective court of final fact-finding in the rent-control hierarchy. What lies beyond the Tribunal, however, became the subject of a major constitutional decision.
Rajendra Diwan and the fall of Section 13(2)
As originally enacted, Section 13(2) provided that an appeal against an order of the Rent Control Tribunal shall lie to the Supreme Court — a statutory second appeal bypassing the High Court altogether. In Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1586 (decided 10 December 2019), a five-Judge Constitution Bench (Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ., judgment authored by Banerjee, J.) declared Section 13(2) ultra vires the Constitution, null and void. The Court held that the constitution, organisation, jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court fall within Entry 77 of the Union List, and that a State legislature has no competence to confer a statutory right of appeal on the Supreme Court; even Presidential assent cannot cure a want of legislative competence. The Court contrasted this with Article 136, which is the Supreme Court's own discretionary power and not a regular appellate channel a State can mandate. Significantly, the legislature thereafter omitted Section 13(2) by an amendment, aligning the statute with the judgment.
What remedy survives against a Tribunal order
Striking down Section 13(2) did not leave aggrieved parties without recourse. In Rajendra Diwan the Court underscored that the High Court's supervisory and writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution remains available against orders of the Rent Control Tribunal. That jurisdiction, however, is supervisory and not appellate: the High Court does not re-hear the dispute but interferes only where there is a patent error of law going to the root of the decision, perversity, arbitrariness or unreasonableness, or a grave miscarriage of justice. The Chhattisgarh High Court has accordingly entertained challenges to Tribunal and Controller orders under Article 227 — including clarifying that the Act's machinery applies even where the let-out property is open land. The practical effect is a clean hierarchy: application and execution before the Rent Controller, a full appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal under Section 13(1), and supervisory correction by the High Court under Article 227, with the Supreme Court reachable only through its own discretionary Article 136 jurisdiction.
Exam takeaways on procedure
For judiciary and CLAT-PG candidates the procedure before the Rent Controller compresses into a few high-yield points. The forum is a Deputy-Collector-rank Rent Controller (Section 7) under a Rent Control Tribunal (Section 8); proceedings ordinarily conclude within six months of the respondent's first appearance (Section 9); the Controller is exempt from the CPC but bound by natural justice and armed with specified civil-court powers, including setting aside ex-parte and default orders (Section 10); orders are self-executing through the Controller within forty-five days, with enhanced mesne profits for overstaying tenants (Section 11); the first appeal lies to the Tribunal (Section 13(1)); and the once-direct appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 13(2) was struck down in Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala (2019), leaving Article 227 supervision by the High Court as the remedy above the Tribunal. To see where this fits among the Act's other building blocks, revisit the key definitions and the scope provisions under application, areas covered and exemptions.
Frequently asked questions
Who is the Rent Controller under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011?
Under Section 7, the State Government appoints, for every district, one or more officers not below the rank of Deputy Collector as Rent Controller, with a specified territorial jurisdiction. The Controller adjudicates rent and eviction disputes and functions subordinate to the Rent Control Tribunal constituted under Section 8.
Is the Rent Controller bound by the Code of Civil Procedure?
No. Section 10 expressly provides that the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal are not bound by the procedure in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and may regulate their own procedure, but they must follow the principles of natural justice. They do, however, possess specified civil-court powers such as summoning witnesses, compelling production of documents and setting aside ex-parte or default orders.
How quickly must the Rent Controller decide a case?
Section 9 lays down that all proceedings before the Rent Controller shall ordinarily conclude within six months from the date of the respondent's first appearance. Execution of a final order under Section 11 is to be completed in a summary manner within forty-five days of service of notice on the opposite party.
How does the Rent Controller execute its orders?
Section 11 keeps execution with the Controller, who may enforce a final order by attachment and sale of property, arrest and detention, attachment of bank accounts or a government servant's salary, appointment of a Commissioner, and delivery of possession, taking police or local-body help if needed. Enhanced mesne profits are payable where a tenant fails to vacate in time.
What did the Supreme Court hold in Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala?
In Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1586 (10 December 2019), a five-Judge Constitution Bench declared Section 13(2) of the Act — which gave a direct statutory appeal to the Supreme Court against Tribunal orders — ultra vires the Constitution and void, holding that a State legislature cannot confer appellate jurisdiction on the Supreme Court, that falling within Entry 77 of the Union List.
After Section 13(2) was struck down, what is the remedy against a Tribunal order?
The first appeal still lies to the Rent Control Tribunal under Section 13(1). Above the Tribunal, the remedy is the High Court's supervisory and writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 — a non-appellate power exercised only for patent error of law, perversity or grave injustice. The Supreme Court remains reachable only through its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136.