IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that adherence to principles of natural justice is essential in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings, particularly in landlord-tenant disputes, where parties must be given a fair opportunity to present their evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. Both the appeals arise out of a common order. The appeal being L.P.A. No. 465 of 2023 has been filed by the writ petitioner, namely, Rounak Jaiswal and the appeal being L.P.A. No. 395 of 2023 has been filed by the respondent no.5 to the writ petition, namely, Bhola Prasad Swarnkar.

Prayer:

2. The instant appeals under clause 10 of the letters patent are directed against the order/judgment dated 14.06.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 662 of 2022, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition has been disposed by quashing and setting aside the order dated 16.12.2021 passed by the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh in House Rent Control Revision No.06 of 2020, whereby the order dated 25.04.2018 passed by the respondent no.4-Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-House Rent Controller, Dumri in H.R. Case No. 05/2017-18 and the order dated 27.09.2019 passed by the respondent no. 3 – the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Giridih in H.R.C Appeal No. 01/2018 have been quashed and set aside.

Facts:

3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which requires to be enumerated herein, reads as under:

The land under Khata No. 7, Plot No. 641, area 1.53 Acres, Plot No. 639 and 642 having an area 19 decimals total 2.02 acres belongings to one Khudabux Khan, situated at village-Isri, P.S.-Dumri (Now Nimiaghat) District Hazaribagh (now Giridih) who died issueless. Since he could not maintain the above referred land of khata no. 7/2 so he surrendered those lands to the then Ex-Landlord Raja Ram Bahadur Singh of Palganj Estate in March 1930 who in turn accepted the same and treated it as his Bakast land. Thereafter, on request of Laljee Bhagat, the Ex-Landlord settled 1.53 acres of land under khata No. 7, Plot No. 641 and 6 decimal under, plot No. 642 total area 1.59 acres of land in Raiyati right after receiving the Salami of Rs. 40/- by giving butta Khata - 7/2 and put him in khas possession. A Raiyati Hukumnama dated 14.03.1930 was also issued by the then landlord in favour of Laljee Bhagat i.e. grand-father of the petitioner.

After the settlement of the land Laljee Bhagat, continuously paying rent to ex-landlord and after abolition of Jamindari system to the State Government throughout his life time and after his death his son and grand-sons Late Ramesh Bhagat and Late Dinesh Bhagat paid rent and obtained rent receipt thereof. Laljee Bhagat constructed several rooms and residential house on lands of plot No. 641 and 642 of Khata No. 7 and after his death his sons Ramesh Bhagat and Dinesh Bhagat come in possession over the saidlands measuring its total areas 1.59 acres of khata No. 7/2. Dinesh Bhagat out of his share let out some of the shops including residential area to different tenants including the Father of the Respondent No. 5 on monthly rent of Rs. 295/- and realized monthly rent during his life time and after his death petitioner is realising monthly rent from the Res. No. 5 without any dispute.

The father of the Petitioner Late Dinesh Bhagat applied in Anchal Office for issuance of land possession certificate with respect to khata no.-7/2, plot no. 641 and 642 and the same was issued in his favour. The Respondent No. 5 was inducted as tenant by the father of the petitioner Late Dinesh Bhagat let out shop including residential area consisting of rooms for residence and one shop measuring an area 1260 sq. Feet on monthly rent of Rs. 295/- and the said rent was realised from him during his life time and after his death the present petitioner appellant from the Respondent No. 5.

The writ-petitioner asked the Res. No. 5 to enhance monthly rent as per Market Valuation in the light of nearby locality, but the Res. No. 5 refused to enhance any more of the monthly rent of the aforesaid premises. Thereafter, after September 2017, the respondent no.5 stopped paying rent.

The writ petitioner filed an application before the respondent no. 4