IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that the provisions of the new Act cannot be applied retrospectively to orders made under the old Act, emphasizing adherence to the law as it stood at the time of the original order.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for quashing the order dated 20.11.2018 (copy of which has been kept at Annexure-4 of this writ petition) passed by respondent No.2 whereby and where under the respondent No.2 has allowed the H.R.C. Revision No.02 of 2016 and set aside the order passed by the Rent Controller in House Rent Control Case No.14 of 2012 dated 29.01.2013 as also the order dated 16.07.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in H.R.C. Appeal No.96 of 2012-13 under Section 26 of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the respondent No.5 is the tenant of the petitioner. The writ petitioner filed House Rent Control Case No.14 of 2012 in the court of House Rent Controller-cum-S.D.M, Dhalbhum at Jamshedpur under Section 5 of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 with a prayer that fair rent of the shop premises in occupation of the opposite party described in the schedule be fixed at Rs.15,295/- per month @ Rs.70/- per sq. ft. per month. The House Rent Controller-cum-S.D.M, Dhalbhum at Jamshedpur fixed the fair rent at Rs.8,740/- inter alia on the basis of the report of the Special Officer, Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee, Jamshedpur which stated the actual prevailing rent in respect of nearby accommodations of the locality as on 10.11.2012. The respondent No.5 filed H.R.C. Appeal No.96 of 2012-13 under Section 26 of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 which was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. The respondent No.5, thereafter, filed H.R.C. Revision No.02 of 2016 before the Divisional Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan Division), Chaibasa. The learned Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan Division), Chaibasa being the respondent No.2 erroneously was under an impression that the new Act i.e. Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 which came into force on 16th May, 2016 by notification No.8/Noti/101/2016/N. Vi- 2660 is applicable to the facts of the case and considering the various amendments in the new Act, set aside the order passed by the House Rent Controller and the appellate authority being the Deputy Commissioner, East Singbhum.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application under Section 5 of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 was a case filed under the provisions of the earlier act and the final order was passed by fixing a fair rent of Rs.8,740/- vide order dated 29.01.2013 and by that time the amended Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 had yet to be in force. So, the original order having been passed under the provisions of the old Act, the appellate authority as well as the Revisional authority ought to have seen whether the order passed by the House Rent Controller was in accordance with the old Act and the Commissioner being the respondent No.2 has committed a perversity by setting aside the order of the House Rent Controller and appellate authority being the Deputy Commissioner, East Commissioner on the basis of the provisions of the new Act. Hence, the same is not sustainable in law. It is therefore submitted that the order dated 20.11.2018 (copy of which has been kept at Annexure-4 of this writ petition) passed by respondent No.2 whereby and where under the respondent No.2 has allowed the H.R.C. Revision No.02 of 2016 and set aside the order passed by the Rent Controller in House Rent Control Case No.14 of 2012 dated 29.01.2013 as also the order dated 16.07.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in H.R.C. Appeal No.96 of 2012-13 under Section 26 of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011; be quashed and set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent- State defends the order