JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Shankar, J.

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the common order dated 23.05.2022 passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in J.B.C. Revision Case No. 12 of 2022 and J.B.C. Revision Case No. 13 of 2022 whereby the said revision applications filed by the petitioner Nos. 1 & 3 to 6 have been dismissed and the orders dated 15.02.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in J.B.C. Appeal No. 38 R 15 of 2018-19 as well as in J.B.C. Appeal No. 42 R 15 of 2018-19 have been affirmed.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners informs the Court that initially while filing the present writ petition, the petitioner No. 2 was also impleaded as the respondent No. 2 since he had not signed the Vakalatnama along with other petitioners, however, subsequently, he also filed Vakalatnama and therefore his name may be permitted to be deleted as the respondent No. 2 from the array of the parties.

3. Considering the said submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, the office is directed to delete the respondent No. 2 from the cause title of the present writ petition.

4. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent filed a case for eviction of the petitioners being J.B.C. Eviction Case No. 14/2016 under Sections 19(1)(c), 21 & 5(3) of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2011’] before the House Rent Controller-cum-S.D.O, Sadar, Ranchi which was allowed vide order dated 30.08.2018 directing the petitioners to vacate the said shop within 15 days from the date of issuance of the order. The respondent however filed J.B.C. Appeal No. 38 R 15 of 2018-19 before the Court of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi under Section 36 of the Act, 2011 challenging the part of the order dated 30.08.2018 whereby the issue No. 5 i.e. whether the plaintiff actually required the suit premises under Section 19(1)(c), was decided against him. The petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner Nos. 3 to 6 also filed J.B.C. Appeal No. 42 R 15 of 2018-19 before the Court of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi against the order dated 30.08.2018 passed by the House Rent Controller-cum-S.D.O, Sadar, Ranchi in J.B.C. Case No. 14/2016. J.B.C. Appeal No. 38 R 15 of 2018-19 was allowed vide order dated 15.02.2022 in favour of the respondent setting aside the part of the order dated 30.08.2018 passed in J.B.C. Case No. 14/2016 whereby the issue No. 5 was decided against the respondent. J.B.C. Appeal No. 42 R 15 of 2018-19 filed by the petitioner Nos. 1 & 3 to 6 was however dismissed upholding the order dated 30.08.2018 passed by the House Rent Controller-cum-S.D.O, Sadar, Ranchi in J.B.C. Case No. 14/2016 whereby the said authority had allowed the respondent's application for eviction of the petitioners from the shop premises situated over M.S. Plot No. 32, Holding No. 25, Ward No. 15 (old), Ward No. 18 (new), measuring an area of 9' × 8' 6?, Main Road, Opposite Sankat Mochan Mandir, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said shop’). Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner Nos. 1 & 3 to 6 preferred revision applications being J.B.C. Revision Case No. 12/2022 and J.B.C. Revision Case No. 13/2022 before the Divisional Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, however, the said revision cases were also dismissed vide the impugned order dated 23.05.2022.

5. It is further submitted that initially Late Abdul Rauf (the grandfather of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5) was inducted as original tenant in the said shop in the year 1920 by the respondent's grandfather, namely, Ram Krishna Sahu. After death of Abdul Rauf, his son, namely, Late Gulam Rasool came in possession of the said shop and thereafter the petitioners are continuing with the business of rubber stamp in the said shop being successor of Late Gulam Rasool. Late Gulam Rasool had paid the rent till August, 2015 @ Rs. 1400/- per month an