The nature of an agreement, whether lease or license, is determined by the real intention of the parties as decipherable from the document and surrounding circumstances. The court's interference with lower court/tribunal orders under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.07.2019 passed by the House Rent Controller-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ranchi-respondent no.4 in JBC Case No.13 of 2017, whereby the petition dated 26.10.2018 filed by the petitioner under Order VII rule 11 read with Order XIV rule 2(2) CPC has been dismissed. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 21.12.2020 passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi-cum-revisional authority-respondent no.2 in JBC Revision Case No.23 of 2019-20, whereby the said revision has been dismissed.

2. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the petitioner is the owner and occupier of a residential flat, measuring an area of 2104 sq. ft. (super built up area) identified as flat no.502, situated at 5th floor of a multi-storeyed apartment in the name and style of Amaltash Residency Estate, Phase II, Modi Compound, Hazaribagh Road, P.O & P.S Lalpur, District Ranchi by virtue of a registered deed of sale dated 11.02.2009 being Deed No. 1577/1346. Since the business premises of the petitioner and the respondent nos.5 and 6 were in the same shopping complex, they were known to each other. The petitioner and his son obtained loan from ICICI Bank, Lalpur Branch, Ranchi to the tune of Rs.1,05,00,000/- and they were always under threat of declaration of their loan account as NPA. At the said juncture, the respondent nos.5 and 6 approached the petitioner and his elder son- Paresh Chauhan for lending a sum of Rs.1,05,00,000/- to meet financial liabilities of their company, namely, M/s Jayant Gas Company and also offered that the said flat along with other adjoining flat identified as flat no.503 of the same building owned by the petitioner and his son be kept with them as collateral security till full and final repayment was made. It was further offered that the petitioner and his son would have to keep on paying interest @ Rs.50,000/- per month i.e. both of them would have to pay Rs.25,000/- each per month. The petitioner accepted the said proposal of the respondent nos.5 and 6 mutually agreeing that the aforesaid sum would be returned within a period of two years by arranging funds from the sale of immovable properties situated in other States and in the meantime, the petitioner and his son would keep on repaying portion of the sum so advanced in instalments but would jointly pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month continuously as interest till full and final repayment. However, in the meantime due to some pressure from the respondent nos.5 and 6, the petitioner agreed to execute and register a deed of sale in respect of the aforesaid two flats owned by him as a security for such transaction. It was agreed by both the parties that the flats would be re-conveyed to the petitioner after the entire amount was repaid. The petitioner and his son were induced by the respondent nos.5 and 6 to put their signature on plain papers, non-judicial stamp paper and four blank cheques each, misrepresenting that the plain papers were necessary for agreement with loan provider bank with which the respondent nos. 5 and 6 promised to manage themselves as the said bank was their tenant. However, the said blank papers were used by the respondent no.5 and 6 to manufacture a lease deed and a leave and licence agreement. The petitioner and his son kept on paying Rs.50,000/- as interest to the respondent no.5 and 6 and also paid portion of the principal amount intermittently as per instruction of the said respondents, however, the respondent nos.5 and 6 sent legal notice dated 23.01.2017 falsely claiming themselves to be owners of the suit property i.e. flat no.502. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner instituted a suit for cancellation of the sale deed. The respondent nos.5 and 6 also filed a case before the respondent no.4 under Section 21 read with Section 19(1)(a)(c)(d) and (e) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and