The appellate authority cannot contravene established grounds for eviction determined by the Rent Controller, especially when one ground is sufficient for eviction.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

Prayer The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent, is directed against the order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.1021 of 2024, whereby and whereunder, the order dated 09.10.2023 passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division has been assailed, by which, the order passed by the revisional authority has been held to be proper and the writ petition has been dismissed. Factual Matrix 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, which read as under:

2(i). It is the case of the writ petitioner that respondent No.5 is the owner of one shop in ground floor and mezzanine floor under Shop No.13 situated at Ranchi Club Complex, Main Road, Ranchi. The writ petitioner approached the respondent No.5 for renting the shop for a showroom in name and style of ‘Satya Paul’ in the year 2010 and accordingly, the writ petitioner and respondent No.5 entered into a lease agreement dated 06.10.2010. In terms of said lease agreement, the respondent No.5 agreed to let out the shop with all fixtures on a rent of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) per month for the period of 11 months. After expiry of the said lease agreement dated 06.10.2010, petitioner and respondent No.5 entered into a lease agreement dated 06.10.2011 for the period of 11 months, reiterating the terms and conditions of the earlier agreement and further agreement was entered on 01.09.2012.

2(ii) It is the further case of the writ petitioner that he was in possession of the shop and was complying with all the terms and conditions of the agreement and there was a good relation between the writ petitioner and respondent No.5. Again, after the expiry of the lease agreement dated 01.09.2012, the writ petitioner kept requesting the respondent no.5 to renew the lease in favour of the writ petitioner, but the respondent No.5 kept assuring the writ petitioner of renewing it when he visits Ranchi, as he was posted outside Ranchi. The respondent No.5 failed to renew the lease agreement, the writ petitioner was constrained to send a letter dated 13.05.2016 to the respondent No.5 requesting him to renew the lease agreement. Instead of renewing the lease agreement, the respondent No.5 served a legal notice dated 20.05.2016 on the writ petitioner for eviction of the petitioner from the shop in question.

2(iii). Subsequently, respondent No.5 filed a petition bearing J.B.C. (Eviction) Case No.51/2016 before the Rent Controller- cum-Sub- Divisional Officer, Sadar Ranchi under Section 19(1)(a), 19(1)(d) and 19(1)(e) of Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Vide order dated 22.01.2019, the Rent Comptroller- cum-Sub- Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi has been pleased to direct the writ petitioner to pay the remaining arrear of rent and directed to vacate the premises in question.

2(iv). Thereafter, writ the petitioner moved to the Appellate Authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi vide order dated 09.07.2022 passed in J.B.C. Appeal No.82R15 of 2018-19 under Section 36 of the Act has been pleased to set aside the order of the Rent Comptroller dated 22.01.2019 and allowed the writ petitioner to pay the arrears and to continue in the premises in question.

2(v). Against that order, the respondent No.5 moved before the Commissioner in Revision which was numbered as J.B.C. Revision Case No.30/2022 under Section 37 of the Act. The Commissioner has allowed the revision vide order dated 09.10.2023 whereby the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 09.07.2022 in J.B.C. Appeal No.82R15 of 2018-19 has been set aside. Being aggrieved with the same, writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1021 of 2024 has been filed.

3. It is evident from the factual aspect that the appellant has entered into tenancy agreement by virtue of deed of agreemen