ORDER :

1. Defects as pointed out by the office is hereby ignored.

2. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Monalisa Singh and learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. A.K. Sahani.

3. Petitioner – Rajesh Karamli @ Rajesh Vishwakarma, son of Raju Karmali, resident of village Naisarai, P.O.-Ramgarh, P.S. Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh, Jharkhand, having his shop at Suderbagh Tand, Raja Bangla, Main Road, Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. and District-Ramgarh, Jharkhand has assailed the eviction proceeding initiated under the provisions of Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Monalisa Singh has submitted that without having a clear finding with regard to the relationship between the landlord and the tenant, no proceeding under the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 can be initiated and proceeded.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Monalisa Singh has further submitted that the order dated 19.01.2019 passed by the learned House Rent Controller-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Ramgarh in J.B.C. (Eviction Suit) Case No. 23/2018, has been set aside by the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh in terms of order dated 14.10.2019 in Eviction Appeal No. 15/2019 and remanded the matter before the Sub Divisional Officer, Ramgarh for fresh consideration on the point of relationship of landlord and tenant, but the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh has been assailed by the plaintiff/respondent before the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh claiming himself to be Power of Attorney Holder of the landlord and the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh without expressing his finding, has concurred with the order of the House Rent Controller-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Ramgarh and thus passed an order without giving any finding, in the revision application vide J.B.C. Revision No. 18/2020 in terms of order dated 10.09.2020.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Monalisa Singh has further submitted that the respondent is claiming himself to be a Power of Attorney Holder, for and on behalf of the legal heirs of Late Taj Mohammad and Asraf Mian, without disclosing the details of power of attorney, given to him by the legal heirs of Late Taj Mohammad and Asraf Mian. On the basis of such document, respondent, Ayub Khan has filed an application for eviction of sole petitioner, Rajesh Karamli @ Rajesh Vishwakarma by impleading as defendant / opposite party nos. 1 & 2, only on the basis of his residential address and shop address.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Monalisa Singh has further submitted that J.B.C. (Eviction Suit) Case No. 23/2018 has been filed on the ground of personal necessity and default. So far the suit for personal necessity is concerned, it can only be filed by plaintiff in person or co-owner in person, showing his personal necessity of building, but it cannot be filed on the basis of power of attorney that the landlord has personal requirement of the suit property for his own use, as such, the court of House Rent Controller-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Ramgarh has wrongly passed the impugned order dated 19.01.2019 and the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh has also not given any finding except that he has recorded the finding of the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum House Rent Controller without expressing his own finding and opinion.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Monalisa Singh has thus submitted, that it was incumbent upon the courts below to give a clear cut findings, with regard to the relationship of tenant and landlord before invoking provisions under Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011, as such the order dated 19.01.2019 passed by learned House Rent Controller-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Ramgarh in J.B.C. (Eviction Suit) Case No. 23/2018 and order dated 10.09.2020 passed by learned Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh in J.B.C. Revision