Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Nilu Devi W/o Late Baban Singh – Petitioner
Versus
Gopal Krishna Verma S/o Late Lata Awadhesh Kumar Verma – Respondent
C.M.P. No. 1092 of 2023
Decided On : 13-01-2025
(A) Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 - Sections 19(1)(d), 2(g); Jharkhand State Housing Board Act, 2000 - Sections 58, 59 - Legality of eviction orders - Petitioner challenged eviction orders passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, asserting only Jharkhand State Housing Board has jurisdiction to evict - Court held that the respondent No. 1, as landlord, had the right to initiate eviction proceedings under the Act - The provisions of the Jharkhand State Housing Board Act exclude the application of the Rent Control Act in this case. (Paras 3, 4, 18, 19)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court affirmed that the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Rent Controller had jurisdiction to pass eviction orders as the property was leased to respondent No. 1, who was recognized as the landlord under the Act. (Paras 18, 19)
(C) Appeal - The court clarified that the petitioner retains the right to appeal against the eviction orders under the provisions of the Rent Control Act. (Paras 23, 24)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was evicted from a property leased by the Jharkhand State Housing Board to respondent No. 1, who initiated eviction proceedings. The petitioner contended that only the Housing Board had jurisdiction to evict.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the eviction orders were valid as the respondent No. 1 was the recognized landlord and had the authority to initiate proceedings.
Issues: The main issues were whether the Sub-Divisional Officer had jurisdiction to order eviction and whether the respondent No. 1 could initiate proceedings under the Rent Control Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the provisions of the Jharkhand State Housing Board Act exclude the application of the Rent Control Act, affirming the authority of the Sub-Divisional Officer to issue eviction orders.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari along with Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Anup Kumar Sinha along with Mr. Karan Shahdeo, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Sachin Kumar along with Ms Surabhi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2-Jharkhand State Housing Board.
2. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Jharkhand State Housing Board submits that by order dated 29.11.2023, the Jharkhand State Housing Board was directed to be made as a party respondent No. 2 in the present case, pursuant to that the counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2-Jharkhand State Housing Board. He submits that the Jharkhand State Housing Board was not a party before the learned court, who has passed two orders, which are under challenge.
3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the orders dated 08.08.2023 and 18.07.2023, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Rent Controller, Seraikella under the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011, in connection with Eviction Case No. 176 of 2022.
4. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 1 herein has instituted petition under Section 19(1)(d) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Seraikella with a prayer for eviction of the petitioner from the house property, situated at 7HF-2/2, HIG Flat, Dindli, Adityapur, which was leased out by the respondent No. 2 Jharkhand State Housing Board in favour of respondent No. 1 vide lease deed No. 672/693 dated 11.02.2020. He submits that the petitioner appeared in the said eviction case and file his written statement. He further submits that thereafter an application dated 09.06.2023 has been filed by the petitioner raising a preliminary objection stating therein that only the Jharkhand State Housing Board has the jurisdiction to evict any person from the property belonging to the Housing Board and the present eviction case is not maintainable before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Seraikella. He then submits that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Seraikella by order dated 18.07.2023, rejected the said objection of the petitioner on erroneous ground and the case was directed to be listed on 25.07.2023. He submits that thereafter the petitioner has filed a petition dated 28.07.2023, praying for grant of some time, so that the petitioner can approach the Hon’ble High Court against the order dated 25.07.2023, however, on the said petition, no order was passed. He then submits that subsequently by judgment dated 08.08.2023, the Sub-Divisional Officer-Seraikella, in Eviction Case No. 176 of 2022 has directed the petitioner to vacate the premises.
5. On the above background of these facts, by way of referring Section 58 of the Jharkhand State Housing Board Act, 2000 submits that Section 19(1)(d) of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 is not applicable and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Seraikella is not the competent authority, as the premises in question belongs to the Jharkhand State Housing Board and in view of that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Seraikella has erred in passing the aforementioned two orders.
6. By way of referring the further provision made in Section 59 of the Jharkhand State Housing Board Act, 2000, he submits that the summary procedure is described therein and for violation of any terms prescribed therein, only the Jharkhand State Housing Board authority can proceed and that authority is having the power to pass the appropriate orders. By way of referring the definition of landlord under Section 2(g) of Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011, he submits that the landlord is prescribed therein can said to be the landlord. To buttress his arg
The court affirmed that the landlord, as defined under the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, has the authority to initiate eviction proceedings, excluding the application of ....
The court affirmed that non-payment of rent constitutes a breach of tenancy conditions, justifying eviction under the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011.
The State Government exceeded its jurisdiction under the U.P. Rent Control Act by restoring a sub-letting order that contravenes established tenant rights, emphasizing the requirement that tenants oc....
[The court established that notices issued without proper authority under the Jharkhand State Housing Board Act, 2000, are invalid, and that allottees have a right to equitable treatment in the conte....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
