Advocates:
['RAM NARAYAN UPADHYAY', '', 'TEJO MISTRY', 'ATANU BANERJEE', '', 'SHANKAR LAL AGARWAL']

[1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(C) No.464 of 2017

Rabi Bhushan

. … Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-House Rent controller, Dhalbhu,

Singhbhum East.

3. Smt. Prabhawati Devi.

… Respondents

-------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

-------

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Tejo Mistry, Advocate

Mr. Ram Narayan Upadhyay, Advocate

For the Resp.-State

: Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Sr. SC-III

Mr. D.C. Mishra, AC to Sr. SC-III

For the Resp. No.3

: Mr. Shankar Lal Agarwal, Advocate

----------------------------

06/Dated 16^th October, 2019

1.

This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

whereby and whereunder orders dated 19.10.2016 and 07.11.2016

passed in HRC Case No.28 of 2013 by the Sub-Divisional

Magistrate-cum-House Rent Controller, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur has

been sought to be quashed.

2.

It is the case of the petitioner that a proceeding has been initiated by

making an application by the respondent-landlord for fair fixation

of rent as required to be fixed under the Jharkhand Building (Lease,

Rent and Eviction) Control Act.

Although the same has been filed under the provision of

the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act,

2011 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2011) being HRC Case

No.28 of 2013 which was decided vide order dated 28.06.2014

against which the present writ petitioner has preferred an appeal

before the appellate forum being HRC Appeal No.18 of 2014-15

wherein the appellate authority by taking into consideration the

effective date of implementation of the Act, 2011 since came into

[2]

effect from 15.04.2015 by virtue of notification issued in exercise of

power conferred under Section 1(3) of the Act, 2011 dated

16.08.2016, as such the order passed by the Rent Controller in HRC

Case No.28 of 2013 has been held to be without jurisdiction but the

grievance of the petitioner is that the Rent Controller has again

proceeded afresh which according to the petitioner is not

permissible.

3.

This Court has heard the learned counsel on 03.09.2019 and after

considering the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the State

has been called upon to file affidavit as also the notice has been

issued upon the respondent No.3.

The respondent No.3 has put his appearance through his

counsel who has been represented by Mr. Shankar Lal Agarwal.

4.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State as also the respondent

No.3 have jointly submitted that there is no infirmity in the

impugned order as because the contention which has been raised by

the petitioner about the jurisdictional error on the basis of

applicability of the provision of the Act, 2011 which although came

into being on 15.04.2015 and as such, prior to 15.04.2015 the

consideration/adjudication of the issue have been raised by parties

pertaining to the tenancy laws will be governed by the Jharkhand

Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000 (hereinafter

referred to as the Act, 2000), although the application has been filed

by the respondent No.3 under Section 12 of the Act, 2011 in

pursuance thereto, a proceeding has commenced which ultimately

resulted into an order passed by Rent Controller on 28.06.2014 in

HRC Case No.28 of 2013 but the same has been challenged by the

petitioner who happens to be the tenant/respondent herein, raising

jurisdictional error on the ground of applicability of the provision of

the Act, 2011 and as such the appellate court after taking into

consideration the legal position about the applicability of the Act,

2011 w.e.f. 15.04.2015 has rightly set aside the order passed by the

Rent Controller on 28.06.2014 but thereafter if proceeding has

again been initiated by the Rent Controller, no illegality can be said

[3]

to have been committed by the Rent Controller since the order