Jharkhand High Court
Abhishek Kumar Gupta vs Manisha Gupta on 21 July, 2025
2025:JHHC:19984
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Civil Revision No. 02 of 2023
--------
Abhishek Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Shankar Lal Gupta, aged about 35
years, R/o Shyam Mandir Road, P.O. & P.S., Sub-Division and District-
Deoghar, Jharkhand-814112 … … Petitioner
Versus
Manisha Gupta, D/o Late Sunil Prasad Sah @ Sunil Sah, W/o Arun
Kumar, aged about 48 years, R/o Mohalla Imlibari, S.B. Roy Road,
Deoghar, P.O., P.S. and Sub-Division, District-Deoghar …Opp. Party
—–
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
——–
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate
Ms. Shivani Jaluka, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate
Mr. Suman Kr. Ghosh, Advocate
——–
st
Order No. 17/ Dated:21 July, 2025
It is here to be mentioned that at the first instance, the petitioner
has filed W.P. (C) No. 5642 of 2022 for issuance of appropriate
orders/directions for quashing the order dated 13.10.2022 (impugned
order) passed by Rent Controller-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Deoghar
in Jharkhand Building Act Case No. 16 of 2021 whereby and
whereunder the Rent Controller-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Deoghar
was pleased to direct the petitioner/defendant to evict the shop of the
opposite party/plaintiff under Section 19(1)(c) and (d) of the Jharkhand
Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011.
2. Later on, vide order dated 18.01.2023, the said writ petition was
converted into Civil Revision and re-numbered as C.R. No. 02 of 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant assailing the
impugned order has vehemently argued that the aforesaid eviction suit
under Section 19(1)(c) and (d) of Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and
Eviction) Control Act, 2011 was instituted by the plaintiff/opposite party
on 18.12.2021 and after admission of the suit, notices were issued
against the petitioner/defendant. The original defendant, father of the
petitioner namely Shankar Lal Gupta (original defendant) appeared but
before filing his written submission died due to heart-attack on 07th
January, 2022. Thereafter, petitioner was substituted as defendant and his
1 C.R. No. 02 of 2023
2025:JHHC:19984
written statement was filed in the above suit on 25.04.2022. Thereafter,
on three consecutive dates, there was no progress in the suit and case
was fixed on 06.10.2022. On that day, on the basis of the pleadings of the
parties, the Court has settled following two issues:-
(i) Whether the landlord tenant relationship exists or not?
(ii) Whether the rent is being paid and whether it is agreeable?
And next date was fixed on 13.10.2022 where it is wrongly
mentioned dehors to the procedure established by law as under:-
"Order attached after taking oral and
documentary evidence"
It is apparent from the order-sheet of the learned trial court that in
between 06.10.2022 to 13.10.2022, no date was fixed for taking oral and
documentary evidence of the respective parties rather arbitrarily and
whimsically the learned trial Court ignoring the settled procedure as
prescribed under Section 33 of Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and
Eviction) Control Act, 2011 has passed the impugned order without
taking oral and documentary evidence and without providing any
sufficient opportunity to lead the evidence in flagrant violation of
principle of natural justice,. Therefore, impugned order is absolutely
illegal and cannot be justified under law which is fit to be set aside with
all consequential order passed by the learned court below.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opp. party has contended
that on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and their admissions and
documents annexed along with the pleadings, a reasoned order has been
passed by the learned Rent Controller-cum-Sub Divisional Officer,
Deoghar which is justified under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC. The main
plea of the defendant/petitioner before the Rent Controller Officer was
that his father got an agreement to sale the suit premises from the father
of the plaintiff which does not confer any right, title and interest and
“once a tenant is always a tenant” therefore, there is no merit in this
revision, which is fit to be dismissed.
5. I have gone through the impugned order in the light of contentions
raised on behalf of learned counsel for the respective parties. It appears
that the specific case of plaintiff is that the suit premises was let out in
2 C.R. No. 02 of 2023
2025:JHHC:19984
favour of original defendant Shankar Lal Gupta on monthly rent of Rs.
1000/-. The rent was paid till the month of November, 2021 and it is due
from December, 2021. The plaintiff Manisha Gupta wife of original
landlord Arun Kumar reasonably and bona fidely requires the suit
premises for her personal use and occupation as the defendant has also
closed the shop and not using the same. From perusal of impugned order,
it is crystal clear that no oral evidence has been adduced by any of the
parties and documentary evidence was filed only by the plaintiff and no
evidence was adduced by the defendant and on the very day of the
settlement of the issues, the impugned order was passed directing the
petitioner to vacate the suit premises within one month from the date of
the order otherwise legal action may be taken against him.
6. In the aforesaid scenario, it is pertinent to extract the provisions of
Section 33 of Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control
Act, 2011 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.”
3 C.R. No. 02 of 2023
2025:JHHC:19984
7. The aforesaid procedure to be adopted and followed by the
controller are mandatory in nature which ordens that the parties must be
given reasonable opportunity to lead their evidence as may be adduced in
support of their case. Although it is mentioned in the impugned order
that oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties have been
considered while passing the order but the same is beyond the record.
The learned Rent Controller-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Deoghar was
duty bound to observe the minimum fair procedure of natural justice
before passing the impugned order.
8. In view of the above discussion and reasons, I find merits in this
revision. The impugned order is found to be passed in utter violation of
procedural mandates as well as principle of natural justice without
affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to adduce his evidence.
9. Accordingly, impugned order dated 13.10.2022 passed by Rent
Controller-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Deoghar is hereby set aside with
all consequential orders of eviction passed in this case. Learned court
below is directed to restore the Jharkhand Building Act Case No. 16 of
2021 to its original number and proceed to decide afresh in accordance
with the law, after taking evidence of the parties as may be adduced and
dispose of the case within two months from the date of receipt of this
order.
10. Accordingly, in view of the above observation, this revision is
allowed.
11. Pending I.As, if any, is also disposed of, accordingly.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court
Dated 21/07/2025
Basant/N.A.F.R.
4 C.R. No. 02 of 2023
[ad_1]
Source link