MOHAN LAL BAJAJ vs SHIV KUMAR CHOURASIA — WPC/2740/2026

Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 02nd June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010206642026

Filing Number

WPC/11917/2026

Filing Date

18-May-2026

Registration No

WPC/2740/2026

Registration Date

29-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

Coram

Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

RENT ACT MATTERS ( 2 )

Sub-Category

OTHERS AND MIXED BAG ONES. ( 211 )

Judicial Branch

Writ Section

Decision Date

02-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 04-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MOHAN LAL BAJAJ

    Adv. RAKESH KUMAR THAKUR,SHASHI BHUSAN TIWARI,SHASHI BHUSAN TIWARI, ,SATYENDRA SRIVAS,Anway Tiwari,SHASHI BHUSAN TIWARI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SHIV KUMAR CHOURASIA

    Adv. ,POONAM GILURKAR 1123

  2. 2.Ramesh Kumar Chourasia,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 02-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice,Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta GuruView PDF

    The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by tenant Mohan Lal Bajaj challenging eviction orders against him. The court found that the lower authorities properly appreciated evidence regarding the landlords' bona fide requirement for business expansion and absence of alternative suitable premises, rejecting Bajaj's defense based on an alleged 2017 agreement for shop reconstruction. The court determined there was no material non-consideration of evidence or misapplication of law warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 02-Jun-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

  4. 18-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPC/2740/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by tenant Mohan Lal Bajaj challenging eviction orders against him. The court found that the lower authorities properly appreciated evidence regarding the landlords' bona fide requirement for business expansion and absence of alternative suitable premises, rejecting Bajaj's defense based on an alleged 2017 agreement for shop reconstruction. The court determined there was no material non-consideration of evidence or misapplication of law warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case