Raj Kumar Gambhir, aged about 68 years, son of late Tirath Ram, resident of v. 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, P.o. &
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3343 of 2024 Raj Kumar Gambhir, aged about 68 years, son of late Tirath Ram, resident of Thana Road, P.O.and P.S. Sariya, District-Giridih …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, P.o. & P.S. Hazaribagh, District - Hazaribagh. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, P.O. & P.S. Giridih, Ditrict - Giridih. 3. Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-House Rent Controller, Bagodar-Sariya, P.O. & P.S. Bagodar, District Giridih, Jharkhand. 4. Rajendra Prasad, son of Late Bhagwan Lal, resident of Plot No. C-4, Centre Market, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro …… Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate --------- For the State For the Resp. No.4 : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate : Mr. Anish Kumar Mishra, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-I ……………. C.A.V. On:- 12/08/2024 Pronounced on:- 21/08/2024
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anish Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent no.4. 2. Prayer in this petition is made for quashing of the order dated 8.5.2024 passed in H.R.C. Revision Case No. 37/2022 (Annexure-10) by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, whereby the revision preferred against the order dated 8.2.2022 passed in H.R.C. Appeal No. 02/2021 by the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih has been allowed and the order passed by the said appellate authority has been set aside and the order dated 31.3.2021 passed in Case No. 21/2021 by the House Rent Controller has been upheld. Further prayer is made for quashing of the order dated 31.3.2021 passed in Case No. 21/2021 under Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011 with regard to the eviction from the house 1 situated at Khata No. 155, Plot No.4261 at Sariya Bazar (Vivekanand Marg). The further prayer is made for quashing of the order dated 6.12.2018 passed in Misc. Case No. 105/2018 by the House Rent Controller. 3. Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the premises in question situated at Khata No. 155, Plot No. 4261 has been let out by one Ram Prasad Mandal and Narayan Mandal to the petitioner in the year 1986 on monthly rent and since then, the petitioner is in occupation of the premises and further he has established a wooden furniture shop and a hotel. He further submitted the said property is in the share of the said Ram Prasad Mandal and Narayan Mandal, however, respondent no. 4 namely, Rajendra Prasad has also claimed the said property. The name of Ram Prasad Mandal and Narayan Mandal was entered in the Khatiyan and other online revenue records. He further submitted that pursuant to written agreement for rent dated 01.04.2017 with Ram Prasad Mandal and Narayan Mandal the petitioner was put in possession with the tenancy @ Rs. 4500/- per month till 31.3.2020 and thereafter also the agreement continued on year to year basis and the petitioner is depositing the rent and agreement is contained in Annexure-1 Series. He further submitted that the respondent no.4 namely, Rajendra Prasad had no right or title over the land in question however, he had filed an application dated 10.7.2018 before the Sub Divisional Officer for eviction of the petitioner. He then submitted that on the basis of the said application in absence of ascertaining the service of notice, the order dated 6.12.2018 was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in Misc. Case No. 105/2018 directing the petitioner to evict and the order was ex-parte and pursuant to that the petitioner preferred an appeal being Eviction Appeal No. 03/2020 before the learned Deputy Commissioner, Giridih and the learned 2 Deputy Commissioner, Giridih vide order dated 18.1.2021 remanded the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer to decide the matter. He then submitted that vide order dated 31.3.2021 passed in Case No. 21/2021, the learned Court has further upheld the first order dated 6.12.2018 and pursuant that the petitioner preferred H.R.C. Appeal No. 02/2021 before the learned Deputy Commissioner, Giridih and the learned Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 8.2.2022 set aside the order dated 31.03.2021 passed in Case No. 21/2021 by the House Rent Controller and against that order the respondent no.4 Rajendra Prasad preferred a revision u/s 37 of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011 before the learned Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh and the revisional authority has set aside the order of the appellate authority and affirmed the order passed by the learned Rent Controller dated 31.3.2021. In these back ground he submitted that with regard to property in question Original Suit No. 112 of 2021 is also pending filed by Ram Prasad Mandal and Narayan Mandal declaring their right, title, possession and interest over the land in which respondent no.4-Rajendra Prasad is also one of the party. He further submitted that there is civil dispute between the parties claiming right, title and interest and inspite of that by the vague order dated 31.03.2021 the House Rent Controller has directed the petitioner to vacate. He then submitted that in absence of any finding of landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and respondent no.4 the said orders have been passed which is against the mandate of law in view of that the impugned orders may kindly be set aside. He further submitted that the revisional authority has exceeded his jurisdiction and without appreciating any oral evidence he has decided the revision as of he was exercising the appellate 3 jurisdiction. On these grounds he submitted that the impugned orders may kindly be set aside. 4. Per contra, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 submitted that delaying of filing the title suit is also indicative of the fact that plea of the dispute of title is an afterthought and in view of that the authority concerned has rightly decided the eviction suit. He further submitted that panchayati as stated in the writ petition further strengthens the case of respondent no.4-Rajendra Prasad. He then submitted that on the basis of application of the electricity connection the petitioner is stating him as a tenant. He further submitted that after the settlement in panchayati the petitioner paid rent to the answering respondents till November, 2017 and he has refused to pay the rent. He further submitted that the petitioner is not competent to dispute the title of the respondent no.4. He then submitted that the factum of ownership of Rajendra Prasad clearly established in view of report of the Circle Officer in Eviction Case No. 105 of 2018. He further submitted that agreement which was non-stamp in view of that no case of the petitioner is made out. He further submitted that the learned revisional court has passed the reasoned order which is well speaking order in view of that order of the House Rent Controller even if it is cryptic has merged in that order as such the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 5. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties the Court has gone through the materials on record including the judgments passed by the House Rent Controller, appellate authority and revisional authority. By the order dated 06.12.2018 the learned S.D.O. directed the petitioner to evict the premises in question. In the said order it has been clearly stated that the even after receiving of the notice the 4 petitioner was not there, if the petitioner was not there, at least some opportunity by way of adjournment was required to provide to defend the case and in absence of that the said order has been passed. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner in H.R.C. Appeal No. 03/2020 whereby the matter was remanded back by the Deputy Commissioner to the House Rent Controller to again decide the same by a reasoned order and pursuant to said remand the House Rent Controller has passed order dated 31.03.2018 in J.B.C. Case No. 21/2021 and by the said order he has only stated that the earlier order dated 06.12.2018 passed by the said authority is good one and he has reiterated the said order. The order dated 06.12.2018 was already set aside by the appellate authority and remanded back the matter to the Rent Controller to decide afresh however, he has not decided afresh and only stated that the order dated 06.12.2018 was the good one. Thus, this order dated 31.03.2021 is against the well settled law of judicial propriety. Once the remand was made to decide afresh the said authority was required to discuss all the things reasoned order was to be passed however, he has failed in doing so and against the order the petitioner preferred H.R.C. Appeal No. 02/2021. The learned Deputy Commissioner found the said order dated 31.03.2021 is not in accordance with law and further overpowering the power of the appellate authority and he has been pleased to set aside the order dated 31.03.2021 passed in Case No. 21/2021. The Court finds that the said appeal order has been rightly passed as in the earlier remand it was directed to decide afresh but the House Rent Controller has failed to do so. Against the order of the appellate authority dated 08.02.2022 passed in H.R.C. Appeal No. 02/2021 the respondent no. 4 preferred H.R.C. Revision No. 37 of 2022 and by order dated 5 08.05.2024 the revisional authority has set aside the order dated 08.02.2022 passed in H.R. C. Appeal No. 02/2021 by the Deputy Commissioner and affirmed the order of the House Rent Controller dated 31.03.2021 passed in J.B.C. Case No. 21/2021. The Revisional Authority has set aside the appellate order which was rightly passed considering that even after the remand the Rent Controller has not decided the case on merit he has only reiterated that order dated 06.12.2018 passed in Misc. Case No. 105/2018 was correct. The revisional authority further exceeded his jurisdiction as he has appreciated the entire case afresh and set aside the order of the appellate authority which is not the spirit of revision. The scope of the revisional jurisdiction depends on the language of the statute conferring the revisional jurisdiction. Having regard to the language of section in section 37 of the Act of 2011 conferring revisional powers which include an examination of the legality or propriety of the order under the revision, the revisional authority in an appropriate case re-appreciate the evidence and interfere with findings of fact however, revisional jurisdiction is only a part of the appellate jurisdiction though the revisional power depending upon the language of the provision might be wider than revisional power under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure yet revisional court is not a second or first appeal and cannot be equated with that of a full fledged appeal. Therefore, when the findings of fact recorded by the courts below are supported with on the evidence on record, the revisional court must be reluctant to embark upon an independent reassessment of the evidence and to supplant a conclusion of its own. 6. In the present case the first Court in absence of any oral and appreciating the other documents has passed the two orders which was not in accordance with law and in absence of any oral and document the 6 revisional authority has further decided the case and affirmed a cryptic order of the House Rent Controller dated 31.03.2021. Thus, the revisional order is not in accordance with law. All the authorities have not decided the crucial aspect in a case like this where the dispute is there with regard to the land- lord itself and in absence of any finding of land-lord and tenant such orders have been passed which are against the spirit of Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011. 7. Once the order was remanded back by the appellate authority at the first instance recording of reasons for passing of the order was not only desirable but was also necessary as it imparts clarity and reduces the chances of arbitrariness in the passing of the order and enables the higher authority to find out whether the decision was arrived at justify and failry and after a due consideration of all the facts bearing on the matter, uninfluenced by any extraneous consideration, the courts insist upon the disclosing of reasons in support of the order on two grounds. (i) That the party aggrieved has the opportunity to demonstr(cid:228)te before the proper forum that the reasons on which the order is based were erroneous. (ii) that obligation to record reasons operates as a check against the possible arbitrary action by an executive authority vested with exercise of quasi judicial powers. 8. The impugned orders are undoubtedly not a speaking order and in view that these orders are liable to be set aside on that ground. 9. Further the Original Suit No. 112 of 2021 is pending before the Court of competent civil jurisdiction in which the right, title and interest of Ram Prasad Mandal and Narayan Mandal and Rajendra Prasad-respondent no.4 is being agitated therein and when a civil dispute is there without arriving on a finding of the land-lord and tenant relationship the eviction 7 proceeding cannot be decided and that has been done in the present case as such the order dated 8.5.2024 passed in H.R.C. Revision Case No. 37/2022 by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, order dated 08.02.2022 passed in H.R.C. Appeal No. 02/2021, order dated 31.3.2021 passed in Case No. 21/2021 and order dated 6.12.2018 passed in Misc. Case No. 105/2018 by the House Rent Controller are set aside. 10. The original suit is restored and the matter is remitted back to the House Rent Controller who will decide the matter by providing opportunity to both the sides including looking into oral and documentary evidence in accordance with law. 11. This writ petition is allowed and disposed of in above terms.
Decision
Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 21st of August, 2024 Satyarthi/A.F.R. 8