The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P (C) No. 6050 of 2022 Ranjay Kumar --- Versus --- Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Commissioner, Palamau Division, Medininagar, Palamau 3. Deputy Commissioner, Palamau 4. Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Rent Controlle, Sadar, Medininagar, Palamau 5. Kumar Giri Shankar Prasad Singh 6. Ashutosh Kumar Tiwary Respondents --- --- --- CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath ---
Legal Reasoning
For the Petitioner: Mr. Dilip Kr. Prasad & Mr. Ajay Kr. Pathak, Advocates For the Resp.-State: Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwari, S.C-1 --- 04 / 27.07.2023 Petitioner-Ranjay Kumar has filed this writ application seeking the following relief (s). i. ii. For quashing the order dated 30.08.2022 (Annexure-5) passed by Commissioner, Palamau in J.B.C. Revision Case No. 2/21 affirming the order dated 15.12.2020 passed by Deputy in J.B.C Appeal Case No. Commissioner, Palamau XV/3/2020-21 as well order dated 30.7.2020 passed by Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Rent Controller, Sadar, Medini Nagar in Eviction Suit No. 8/2020. For restoration of possession of the tenanted premises during the pendency of the present writ application along with the entire articles which were lying in the said premises at the time of forceful dispossession. iii. And in the alternative, to direct the respondents’ no. 5 and 6 to compensate the petitioner by way of damages to the tune of Rupees 20 lac. 2. Respondent No. 5-Kumar Giri Shankar Prasad Singh is the landlord of Ranka Raj Complex standing on plot no. 622 bearing old Holding No. 233, new Holding No. 0130000306000DA, Ward No. 13, situated in Medininagar, District Palamau. This Respondent No. 5 entered into a tenancy agreement with the writ petitioner for two shops being shop nos. 4 and 5 constructed on the aforesaid plot on monthly rent of Rs. 8,000/-. There was further stipulation in the tenancy agreement that the petitioner will not sub-let the tenanted premises. 3. Respondent No. 5 filed eviction suit vide Eviction Suit No. 08/2019-20 before the Respondent No. 4 - Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Rent Controller, Sadar, Medininagar, Palamau on the ground of default in payment of rent from July 2019 to September 2019 and also for breach of terms of the condition of tenancy agreement entered between the parties as the writ petitioner had sub-let the tenanted premises to Asuthosh Kumar Tiwary (Respondent No. 6). 2. 4. Petitioner appeared on notice and sought permission to contest the suit. Permission was accordingly accorded. He also filed written statement denying the fact that he was defaulter in payment of rent and also denied that he violated the terms of the tenancy agreement by sub-letting the tenanted premises to the Respondent No. 6. 5. Writ petitioner has taken a plea that the Respondent No. 4-Sub Divisional Office-cum-Rent Controller, Sadar, Medininagar, Palamau had decided the Eviction Suit No. 08/2019-20 on 30.07.2020 in favour of the Respondent No. 5, holding that the petitioner has defaulted in payment of rent and also violated the terms of the tenancy agreement by sub-letting the premises to the Respondent No. 6-Ashutosh Kumar Tiwary without following the due process of law. 6. Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the aforesaid order was passed without following the due process of law. Respondent No. 4 without framing the issues and also without recording the evidence of the parties and also without exhibiting any document, had passed the impugned order dated 30.07.2020, and allowed the suit in favour of the Respondent No. 5. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of Respondent No. 4, petitioner filed an Appeal before the Respondent No. 3 Deputy Commissioner, Palamau vide Eviction Appeal No. XV/3/2020-21 which was dismissed. Thereafter, petitioner preferred revision before the Respondent No. 2-Commissioner, Palamau Division, Medininagar vide J.B.C. Civil Revision Case No. 02/2021 which was also dismissed by order dated 30.08.2022. Being aggrieved, petitioner has preferred the present writ application. 8. Vide order dated 13.04.2023, entire records of Eviction Suit No. 08/2019-20, Eviction Appeal No. XV/3/2020-21 and J.B.C. Civil Revision Case No. 02/2021 was called for from the concerned courts. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the Respondent No. 4- Sub Divisional Office-cum- Rent Controller, Sadar, Medininagar, Palamau has decided the suit without framing the issues with regard to the dispute between the parties. It further appears that neither the Respondent No. 5, nor the petitioner had adduced any oral or documentary evidence in support of their cases. 9. Perused the impugned order dated 30.07.2022 passed by the Respondent No. 4 – Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Rent Controller, Sadar, Medininagar, Palamau in Eviction Suit No. 08/2019-20. From perusal of this order, it appears 3. that the Respondent No. 4 – Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Rent Controller, Sadar, Medininagar, Palamau has come to the conclusion that the petitioner Ranjay Kumar had defaulted in payment of the rent and also sub-let the tenanted premises to the Respondent No. 6 – Ashutosh Kumar Tiwary. It appears that the Respondent No. 4 has come to the aforesaid findings on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and admission of the Respondent No. 6 in his written statement that the petitioner had sub-let the tenanted premises to him. It further appears that the Respondent No. 5 was not asked to adduce evidence in support of his case that the petitioner has defaulted in payment of the rent and had sub-let the tenanted premises to the Respondent No. 6. 10. Section 33 of Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 enshrines the procedure to be followed while deciding an eviction suit. Section 33 reads as under: “33. Procedure to be followed by Controller (1) No order which prejudicially affects any person shall be made by the Controller under this Act without giving such person a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the order proposed to be made, and until his objection, if any, and any evidence that may "be adduced in support of the same have been considered by the Controller. (2) The Controller shall, while holding enquiry in any proceeding before him follow such procedure as may be prescribed. (3) All proceedings before the Controller shall ordinarily conclude within six months from the date of first appearance of the respondent in response to the summons issued for his appearance in the case, or from the date on which the respondent is set ex- parte: Provided that the Controller may extend the hearing of the case beyond six months for reasons to be recorded by him on each day of hearing. However total period of such hearing shall not exceed 12 months. (4) In the. case of an application under sub-section (2) of section 18, the Controller shall commence the hearing of the application within seven days of the filing thereof and shall dispose off the same as far as may be possible within thirty days of start of such hearing, unless for reasons to be recorded the Controller adjourns the case beyond such time..” 10. From bare perusal of this provision, it is apparent that the evidence has to be recorded during the trial of the suit relating to Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011. 11. Respondent No. 4 should have first identified the issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and thereafter, parties should have been asked to adduce both oral and documentary in support of their cases. Evidences ought to have been recorded either by production of the witnesses personally before the Respondent No. 4 for their examination-in-Chief and 4. cross-examination or by filing their examination-in-chief on affidavit and thereafter, these witnesses should have appeared before the Respondent No. 4 for their cross-examination. Respondent No. 4 by coming to the conclusion, on the basis of the admission of the Respondent No. 6 that the petitioner had sub- let the tenanted premises to him, had lost sight of the fact that this admission could have been collusive in nature. Petitioner should have been given an opportunity to cross-examine the Respondent No. 6 on this point to discredit his admission made in his written statement. 12. It is apparent that the Respondent No. 4 - Sub Divisional Officer-cum- Rent Controller, Sadar, Medininagar, Palamau has adjudicated the suit arbitrarily without following the due process of law. At the very least, principles of natural justice should have been followed which is the foundation of every judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings to protect the right of an individual against an arbitrary or whimsical order. Both the Appellate Court as well as the Revisional Court have also not considered this procedural lacuna in the order dated 30.07.2020. 13. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the order dated 30.07.2020 passed in Eviction Suit No. 08/2019-20 is not in accordance with the settled principles of law and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order dated 30.07.2020 passed in Eviction Suit No. 08/2019-20 is set aside. Consequently, the order dated 15.12.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau in Eviction Appeal Case No. 3/2020-21 and order dated 30.08.2022 passed by the Commissioner, Palamau in J.B.C Civil Revision Case No. 02/2021, are also set aside. Matter is remanded back to the Respondent No. 4 – Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Rent Controller, Sadar, Medininagar, Palamau to decide the eviction suit afresh, in accordance with law.
Decision
14. This writ application is allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. Let the lower court records be returned to the court concerned forthwith. Ranjeet/ (Ambuj Nath, J)