C.G. Engineering Eviction Orders Set Aside

Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 24.08.2026

Case Overview

• Parties: Petitioner – M/s C.G. Engineering Multi‑Functional Complex (M.F.C.); Respondents – Union of India (through Senior Divisional Engineer, South East Central Railway) and Ircon Infrastructure and Services Ltd. (ISL), a wholly‑owned subsidiary of Ircon International Ltd.
• Background: ISL sub‑leased a Multi‑Functional Complex (MFC) at Bilaspur Railway Station to the petitioner under a sub‑lease dated 08‑12‑2013 (15‑year term). The petitioner paid 34 % of the one‑time down‑payment (Rs 17,68,000) and later completed the full non‑refundable amount of Rs 52,00,000 by two further payments of Rs 17,16,000 each (11‑11‑2014 and 11‑11‑2015). Additional security deposits of Rs 36,43,870 (FDR) and Rs 11,75,160 (deposited 28‑09‑2022) were also made. Monthly rent was fixed at Rs 3,03,656, paid without delay until December 2019.
• Dispute: The petitioner claimed that COVID‑19‑related train cancellations, closure of Gate 1, and construction work caused loss of passenger traffic, leading to non‑payment of rent from December 2019 onward. Multiple letters (21‑12‑2020, 04‑03‑2021, 02‑08‑2021) were sent to ISL informing of the situation. ISL issued notices demanding payment of outstanding rent, security deposit, interest, and an ultimatum on 19‑12‑2022, stating dues of Rs 2,70,40,855 as of 31‑12‑2022.
• Eviction Proceedings: ISL sought eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The Estate Officer issued a show‑cause notice dated 03‑06‑2024, but service of this notice was ineffective (speed‑post envelope returned “left”). On 11‑06‑2024 the petitioner’s representative (identified as Sandeep Kumar Pandey, later claiming to be Vikas Pandey) appeared without proper identity proof, and no reply was filed. The Estate Officer proceeded ex parte and ordered eviction on 14‑06‑2024. The petitioner appealed under Section 9 of the Act; the Principal District Judge upheld the eviction on 20‑03‑2025, citing arrears of Rs 2,70,40,855.
• Petitioner’s Submissions: Argued lack of proper notice, violation of natural justice, and that default began before the pandemic. Offered to settle outstanding dues by paying Rs 1.20 crore in installments, sought a five‑year lease extension and a three‑month moratorium (letter dated 23‑12‑2024), which was ignored.
• Respondent’s Submissions: Asserted that the sub‑lease was validly terminated on 05‑01‑2023 due to persistent rent default, that no force‑majeure clause existed, and that the petitioner had not paid any instalments after the initial 34 % down‑payment. Stated that the security deposit of Rs 11,75,160 was forfeited per the agreement.

Final Outcome

• The High Court held that the statutory requirement of serving the show‑cause notice under Sections 4 and 5 of the 1971 Act was not satisfied; the petitioner was denied a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
• Consequently, both the Estate Officer’s order dated 14‑06‑2024 and the Principal District Judge’s order dated 20‑03‑2025 are set aside.
• The eviction case (E/Bilaspur/LC/01/2024) is restored to its original file number.
• Parties are directed to appear before the Estate Officer on 15‑09‑2026. The petitioner may file a reply and present evidence; the Estate Officer must decide the application within two months of that date, without being influenced by the present order’s merits.
• No order as to costs.

Topics: Eviction, Procedural Fairness, Railway Lease