Chhattisgarh HC Sets Aside Rent Controller Order Adjourning All Cases for a Bar Association Condolence Reference
Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal held that a Rent Controller cannot suspend judicial work for an entire day solely because a Bar Association moves a condolence notice, directing expeditious disposal within three months.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has set aside an order passed by the Rent Controller, Raipur, on 2 February 2026, which adjourned all matters listed that day because the District Bar Association, Raipur, had moved a condolence reference. Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, sitting singly, exercised supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and held that wholesale suspension of judicial work on the strength of a Bar Association's condolence notice has no legal basis. The court directed the Rent Controller to decide the petitioner's pending eviction case preferably within three months of the next date fixed, and observed that ceremonial observances do not ordinarily justify a complete halt to judicial business for the entire day.
The Eviction Dispute and the Impugned Adjournment
The petitioner, Satpal Gandhi, a 72-year-old resident of Raipur, had let out his residential house at D-9, Anupam Nagar, Raipur to respondent No. 1, Girdharilal Agrawal, under a written rent agreement in 2015. The agreement was subsequently renewed orally. Disputes arose over rent payment and vacation of the premises, and Gandhi instituted an eviction suit with a claim for arrears of rent under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 before the Rent Controller, Raipur. That case was registered as Case No. 44-90(8)-23-24 and remained at its initial stage.
When the matter came up on 2 February 2026, the Rent Controller did not take it up. Instead, the Rent Controller adjourned the case, along with every other matter on the day's cause list, to 12 February 2026. The reason recorded was a condolence reference received from the District Bar Association, Raipur. Gandhi's petition was filed through his son and registered power of attorney holder, Devendra Gandhi.
The petitioner placed before the High Court the cause list for 2 February 2026, the order passed on that date, and a previous cause list dated 7 January 2026. These documents were relied upon to show that whenever judicial work was suspended, all matters were mechanically adjourned by assigning fresh dates in cause-list serial order. The petitioner also placed the complete order-sheet of the eviction proceedings, which showed that out of twenty-five dates fixed, fourteen hearings had been rendered ineffective — owing to absence of a Presiding Officer after a transfer, the Presiding Officer's engagement in administrative duties, or suspension of work on condolence references.
Gandhi made clear that his challenge was confined to the order dated 2 February 2026. The earlier orders were cited only to demonstrate that the impugned adjournment was part of a recurring practice.
The Legal Challenge: Article 227 and Bar Association Abstentions
Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mohit Gandhi, argued that the order of 2 February 2026 was directly contrary to the Constitution Bench decision in Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 45. That decision categorically held that strikes and boycott calls by lawyers are illegal and that courts are obliged to continue judicial work regardless of such calls. By adjourning all matters in deference to the Bar Association's request, the Rent Controller effectively became a participant in an impermissible abstention.
Counsel also relied on District Bar Association, Dehradun v. Ishwar Shandilya and Others, (2020) 17 SCC 672, and Hussain and Anr. v. Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 702. Both decisions were cited for the proposition that abstention from court work even on account of condolence references has been deprecated by the Supreme Court, which has repeatedly directed courts to maintain uninterrupted access to justice.
A second strand of argument addressed the absence of any hearing to the litigating parties. The condolence reference was made by the District Bar Association, which was not a party to the eviction proceedings. No opportunity was given to the petitioner, who was present and willing to prosecute his case. Counsel argued this violated the audi alteram partem rule and that the adjournment was founded on an extraneous consideration, causing manifest denial of access to justice.
The petitioner further contended that the Rent Controller's dual role as Deputy Collector was causing recurrent interruption of judicial work due to administrative duties. Relying on Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 98, counsel argued that the right to speedy justice is an integral facet of Article 21, and that administrative or financial constraints cannot justify its denial. On this basis, directions were also sought against the State Government to review the workload and duty allocation of the Rent Controller.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Agrawal agreed with the petitioner's central contention. The court found that the legal position on Bar Association abstentions is no longer res integra. Citing Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal, the court reiterated that courts cannot adjourn matters merely because lawyers abstain, since doing so amounts to becoming privy to an illegal strike. The court noted that Hussain extended this principle expressly to abstentions on account of condolence references and that Ishwar Shandilya affirmed High Court directions restraining Bar Associations from abstaining even for condolence observances.
The court stated that paying homage to a departed member of the Bar or Bench is a matter of institutional propriety, but that such observance cannot ordinarily result in complete cessation of judicial work for an entire day.
On the access-to-justice point, the court held that every litigant approaching a judicial forum has a legitimate expectation that the case will be considered on the date fixed, unless circumstances beyond judicial control prevent it. A wholesale adjournment of all listed matters, without examining whether any matter requires urgent consideration and without affording parties present an opportunity to press for hearing, adversely affects the administration of justice. Procedural discretion to adjourn exists, but it must advance justice and “cannot be founded solely upon an extraneous request emanating from a body which is not a party to the lis.”
The court also accepted the submission on the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011. Section 9(2) of that Act, read with Rules 7 and 15 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Adaptation Rules, 2016, manifests a legislative intent for expeditious adjudication of eviction proceedings. Repeated interruptions — whether from condolence references or administrative duties of the Presiding Officer — frustrate that statutory objective. The court applied the constitutional principle from Hussainara Khatoon, observing that while that decision arose in the criminal trial context, the underlying mandate against administrative delay in access to justice applies generally.
The court was, however, careful to limit the scope of its intervention. It observed that the petitioner challenged only the order of 2 February 2026 and not a State-wide institutional practice. Broad administrative directions governing all subordinate courts and tribunals across Chhattisgarh would require a proper factual foundation and an opportunity to all affected stakeholders. The court noted that such general directions appropriately fall within the administrative domain of the High Court on both its judicial and administrative sides. On that basis, the court declined to issue sweeping practice directions of the kind sought under Article 227(2)(b).
Order
The impugned order dated 2 February 2026, passed by the Rent Controller, Raipur in Case No. 44-90(8)-23-24, was set aside insofar as it adjourned the petitioner's case solely on account of the condolence reference, without any other legally sustainable reason.
The Rent Controller was directed to ensure, in future, that judicial work is conducted in conformity with the law declared in Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal and the subsequent decisions cited. The court directed that the Rent Controller shall henceforth endeavour to ensure that cases, particularly those requiring urgent consideration, are not mechanically adjourned solely on the basis of a Bar Association's request. The petitioner's eviction case is to be decided in an expeditious manner, preferably within three months of the next date fixed, if not already decided.
On the prayer for a mandatory direction to the State Government to undertake an administrative review of the Rent Controller's workload and duty allocation, the court declined to issue any mandatory direction. It observed that the competent administrative authorities may examine the issue on their own to facilitate expeditious disposal of proceedings under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011.
The writ petition was accordingly disposed of. The order was reserved on 12 May 2026 and delivered on 28 July 2026.