Back
2019 Supreme(Jhk) 332
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
Satya Pal Chawla - Appellant
Versus
Parmanand Singh - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 2811 of 2019
Decided on : 02-07-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Manish Kumar Mishra, Advocate
Headnote:
Jharkhand Buildings Control Act 2011 - Section 12 - Quashing order – Tenant - Order passed by Deputy Commissioner - Grounds for assailing impugned order as has been taken by petitioners, is that there is no compliance of provisions of Section 12 Act, 2011 which stipulates that before exercising power, as conferred under Section 12 of Act 2011 upon Rent Controller regarding fixation of standard rent condition as stipulated under Sub-section 3 of Section 12 is liable to be fulfilled that rent should be reasonable having regard to location and condition of building and amenities provided therein - According to petitioners since aforesaid building is not in good condition therefore that aspect ought to have been considered considering report furnished by concerned authority in this regard having not done so Rent Controller has acted contrary to provisions as contained in 12 (3) of Act, 2011 - Learned counsel has put his appearance for sole respondent - He has submitted that there is consideration of all conditions as stipulated in Section 12 (3) of Act, 2011 by Rent Controller and the authority also considered enquiry report and only thereafter Rent Controller has declined prayer to enhance rent to extent rather it has been fixed at the rate only on the basis of condition of building – Held, Landlords responsibility. - Every landlord shall carry out repairs which he is bound, under any law contract or custom to make to a building in possession of a tenant Explanation - In this sub-section repairs include annual white-washing, re-coloring and periodical repairs - If landlord fails to carry out white-washing once in every year re-coloring once in three years and periodical repairs which he is bound to make, the tenant may by notice, require him to carry out same within one month from that date of service of the notice and on landlords failure to do so within the said period, the tenant may himself carry out same at a cost not exceeding one months rent for the building and deduct such cost from the rent. (3)If landlord neglects to carry out repairs other than those referred in sub-section (1) which he is bound to make Controller shall on an application by tenant which shall specify approximate cost of such repairs cause a notice to be served on landlord to appear and show cause, within such time as may be fixed in the notice - If landlord does not appear in obedience to the notice of if he appears but fails to satisfy Controller as to why he should not be directed to carry out repairs or such of them as he finds landlord is bound to make, the Controller shall after making such further inquiry as may be necessary direct him to carry out same within a time to be fixed, and on the landlords failure to comply with such direction Controller may permit tenant to carry out such repairs at a cost not exceeding such amount as may be specified in the order and to recover such cost land - It shall thereafter be lawful for tenant to carry out such repairs and to deduct thereof from rent or recover it otherwise from landlord as if it were a debt due to him by landlord - Provided that if Controller is satisfied that repairs involved were due to the negligence of the tenant, he will order tenant to make such repairs and cost of repair shall be borne by tenant and same shall not be recoverable from the landlord by deduction from rent - It is evident from aforesaid provisions that it is responsibility of landlord to carry out repairs and if he neglects to carry out repairs Controller shall on application by tenant would specify appropriate cost of such repairs cause a notice to be served on landlord to appear and show cause within such time as may be fixed in notice - Therefore Section 12 and Section 16 of Act lies in two different fields – Petition dismissed
The instant writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the following reliefs have been sought for:
(i). For quashing order dated 21.05.2019 passed by the Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa in H.R.C. Revision No. 09 of 2018, whereby and whereunder, the Revision preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed and; (ii). For quashing order dated 13.04.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum in H.R.C. Appeal No. 12 of 2015-16, arising out of H.R.C. Case No. 19 of 2014 filed before the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Rent Controller under the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act 2011 (herein after referred to as “Act, 2011”).
2. Brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made by petitioners in the instant writ petition, is that they have been inducted as monthly tenants of the building known as “Bari Mansion” since 1952-53, situated at Juncture of Sakchi Boulevard, N. Road, Bistupur and from the date of inception of the tenancy, the petitioners have been paying monthly rent to the respondent, which is being duly acknowledged by the respondent. The sole respondent has made an application under Sections 9, 11 and 12 of the Act, 2011 against 11 tenants including the petitioners, praying therein for enhancement of prevailing current commercial rent at the rate of Rs. 200/-per sq. ft., which was registered as H.R.C. Case No. 19 of 2014. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners appeared and filed their written statement raising several objections regarding maintainability of the aforesaid H.R.C. Case stating that the condition of the building is not good and respondent is not taking appropriate steps for maintenance of the building. Upon such objections, the Rent Controller directed for conducting an enquiry, which was conducted by Assistant Director, Panchayat, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur, who submitted his report vide letter no. 22 dated 05.08.2014 stating therein that the allegation of the petitioner regarding condition of the building is found to be true and, therefore, opinion has been expressed by him for maintenance/renovation of the building. However, the aforesaid H.R.C. Case No. 19 of 2014 was disposed of vide order dated 06.06.2015, whereby the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Rent Controller enhanced the rent at the rate of Rs. 25/- per sq. ft.
3. The petitioners being dissatisfied with the said order preferred appeal being H.R.C. Appeal No. 12 of 2015-16 under Section 36 of the Act, 2011, which was dismissed vide order dated 13.04.2018 without any reasonable ground and in a very mechanical and arbitrary manner, therefore, the petitioner filed revision petition being H.R.C. Revision No. 9 of 2018 under Section 26 of the Act, 2011 before the Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa, which was disposed of vide order dated 21.05.2019 affirming the order passed by Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. Against the orders aforesaid, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners.
4. The grounds for assailing the impugned order, as has been taken by the petitioners, is that there is no compliance of provisions of Section 12 (3) of the Act, 2011, which stipulates that before exercising the power, as conferred under Section 12 of the Act, 2011, upon the Rent Controller regarding fixation of standard rent, the condition as stipulated under Sub-section 3 of Section 12 is liable to be fulfilled that the rent should be reasonable having regard to the location and condition of the building and the amenities provided therein. According to the petitioners, since the aforesaid building is not in good condition, therefore, that aspect ought to have been considered considering the report furnished by the concerned authority in this regard, having not done so, the Rent Controller has acted contrary to the provisions as contained in 12 (3) of the Act, 2011.
5. Mr. Manish Kumar Mishra, learned counsel has put his appearance for the sol
