Jharkhand High Court
Ashok Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 April, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:12513
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 273 of 2022
Ashok Kumar, son of Late Ramashankar Mishra, aged about
53 years, resident of Near Jorha Mandir, Rana Pratap Nagar,
Chas, P.O. & P.S. Chas, District- Bokaro Steel City.
.....Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Om Prakash Prasad, son of Shri Shambhu Nath Prasad,
resident of A.B. Road, Ram Nagar Colony, Chas, P.Ο. &
P.S.- Chas, District Bokaro.
3. Deo Prakash Prasad, son of Shri Shambhu Nath Prasad,
resident of A.B. Road, Ram Nagar Colony, Chas, P.O. &
P.S.- Chas, District - Bokaro.
4. Suman Kumar, son of Shri Shambhu Nath Prasad, resident
of A.B. Road, Ram Nagar Colony, Chas, P.O. & P.S.- Chas,
District - Bokaro.
5. The Deputy Commissioner of Bokaro having its Office at
Commissionerate Office, Camp II, P.O. & P.S. Sector -I,
Bokaro Steel City.
6. Sanjay Bhalla, son of Late Om Prakash Bhalla, resident of
house no. 248, new Kuldip cinema, Chas, PO & PS Chas,
District - Bokaro.
7. Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Rent Controller, Chas, having
his office at SDO Office, Chas, PO & PS - Chas, District -
Bokaro. ....Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate
Mr. Nilesh Modi, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Sudhanshu Kr.Singh, A.C. to S.C-III
For the Res. No.6 : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate
---------
CAV On: 28/03/2025 Delivered on:23/4/2025
1. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the
Petitioner assailing the Order dated 13.12.2021, passed by the
Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribaghin JBC
2025:JHHC:12513
Revision Case No. 2/2021 (Annexure-13), whereby the
Commissioner has dismissed the revision application preferred
by the Petitioner and has confirmed the Order dated
04.01.2021 passed by the 5thRespondent in JBCA Appeal No.
45/2018-19 (Annexure-11); who confirmed the Order dated
31.01.2019 passed by the 7thRespondent in JBCA Case No.
32/2016 (Annexure-6).
3. The genesis of the dispute lies in the Order dated
31.01.2019 passed by the 7thRespondent-Rent Controller in
JBCA Case No. 32/2016 whovide its order, has considered the
Petitioner as tenant of Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 with respect
to a shop, being Shop No. 06 on the ground floor of a building
named 'Natraj Mansion' situated at By-pass Road, Chas,
Bokaro Steel City (hereinafter to be referred as said Shop).
Based on the said consideration, the Rent Controller, in the
said order, had fixed the rent of the said Shop as Rs. 15,950/-
per month with effect from 22.08.2016 and had further directed
the Petitioner to pay the said rent to the Respondent Nos. 2, 3
and 4. The said order of the Rent Controller was confirmed by
the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner respectively.
The Impugned Orders (Annexures - 6, 11 and 13) have
been passed by the concerned authorities in the proceedings
under the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control
2025:JHHC:12513
Act, 2011 (for short 'JBC Act, 2011') for the purpose of fixation
of rent of the said Shop.
4. Mr. Rahul Lamba, learned counsel for the Petitioner has
argued that the basic jurisdictional fact, to make a proceeding
for rent fixation under the JBC Act, 2011 as maintainable, is
that there has to be a landlord-tenant relationship between the
parties. However, in the present case there was no landlord-
tenant relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondents
Nos. 2, 3 & 4. Accordingly, the jurisdictional fact was
completely absent and the said proceedings for fixation of rent
of the said Shop under the JBC Act, 2011 were not
maintainable before the Rent Controller. Based on this, it has
been arguedthat the Order, dated 31.01.2019 passed by the 7th
Respondent in JBCA Case No. 32/2016, was without
jurisdiction.
5. In order to support his argument that there was no
landlord-tenant relationship between the Petitioner and the
Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, he strongly relied on the
admission of the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 made at
paragraph 21 of their counter affidavit. The said respondents,
at paragraph 21 of their counter affidavit, have admitted that
the Petitioner is not a tenant of the said Shop. The said
Respondents in this paragraph have also alleged that the
Petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the said Shop. But
2025:JHHC:12513
the said contention, that the Petitioner was in unauthorized
occupation of the said shop, has been disputed by the
Petitioner.
6. It has been contended that the Petitioner claims the
possession of the said Shop as a purchaser based on the
Agreement of Sale dated 17.06.2016 executed by the 6th
Respondent in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, it has been
submitted that the Petitioner was no more a tenant of the said
Shop after entering into the Agreement of Sale, dated
17.06.2016, with the Respondent No.6 and subsequent delivery
of possession of the said Shop by the Respondent No.6 to the
Petitioner. The Petitioner after the said event has been
occupying the concerned Shop as the proposed purchaser and
not as the tenant.
7. It has been further submitted that the 6th Respondent
herein, being Defendant No.1 in Original Suit No. 29/2020
pending before the Ld. Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-IV,
Bokaro instituted by this Petitioner for specific performance of
the said agreement of sale, had filed his written statement
dated 08.09.2022 in the said suit. The 6thRespondent in the
said written statement has categorically admitted the execution
of the said Agreement of Sale, dated 17.06.2016, whereby the
he had agreed to sell the said Shop to the Petitioner. Further, it
is also admitted that the 6th Respondent has received
2025:JHHC:12513
Rs.8,61,000/-, out of the total consideration of Rs. 9,11,000/-,
from the Petitioner towards the agreement to sell the said Shop
to the Petitioner.
8. Mr. Lamba contendedthat it is a well-established law that
once an agreement of sale is made in favour of the tenant for
selling the relevant property, thereafter, the tenant does not
remain a tenant but becomes a proposed purchaser of such
property. For the said submission, he has relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of
R. Kanthimathi v. Beatrice Xavier1.
It has also been argued by learned counsel for the
Petitioner that it is an admitted fact that the Respondent Nos. 2
to 4 have never received any rent from the Petitioner with
respect to the said Shop. Further, it is also undisputed facts
that even the Vendor of the said Respondents, Mrs. Meena
Bhalla, with whom they have allegedly entered into the sale
deed, was also not receiving the rent from the Petitioner with
respect to the said Shop. It has been further argued that prior
to the Agreement of Sale dated 17.06.2016 executed by the
6thRespondent in favour of the Petitioner for the said Shop, the
rent of the said Shop was being paid by the Petitioner to the 6th
Respondent. Accordingly, neither the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4
(2000) 9 SCC 339
2025:JHHC:12513
nor their Vendor, Mrs. Meena Bhalla, were the landlord of the
Petitioner with respect to the said Shop.
9. Learned counsel further submits that the Respondent
Nos. 2 to 4 are claiming ownership of the said Shop on the
basis of the sale deed, dated 22.08.2016, executed by Mrs.
Meena Bhalla in favour of the said respondents. However, Mrs.
Meena Bhalla herself had no exclusive right, title or interest in
the said Shop or the property sold under the said sale deed.
Therefore, Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 cannot acquire more than
the right, title or interest of Mrs. Meena Bhalla in the said Shop
or the property sold under the said sale deed.
10. Learned counsel further submits that the relevant
property, including the said Shop, was owned by one Mr. Om
Prakash Bhalla and Mr. Om Prakash Bhalla expired leaving
behind his only son Mr. Sanjay Bhalla-Respondent No. 6
herein, his second wife Mrs. Meena Bhalla and three daughters
Kavita Bhalla, Sunita Bhalla and Kanchan Bhalla. Further, it is
an admitted fact that the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have allegedly
purchased the relevant property only from Mrs. Meena Bhalla
and not from any other legal heir of Late Om Prakash Bhalla.
11. It has been further argued that the Respondents Nos. 2
to 4 have contended that Mrs. Meena Bhalla became the
exclusive owner of the concerned property based on a will of
2025:JHHC:12513
Mr. Om Prakash Bhalla and a NOC from the legal heirs of Late
Om Prakash Bhalla. However, the Respondents have failed to
bring on record any order of a competent court granting
probate on the said will. Further, the said NOC, pursuant to
which it has been claimed that the legal heirs of Late Om
Prakash Bhalla have relinquished their rights in immovable
property, is an unregistered instrument.
12. In support of this contention he relied on Section 213 of
the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to submit that no will is valid
in law, effective and provides right to any person to deal with
the properties of the deceased unless an order of probate or
letter of administration is issued by a competent court of law.
He further relied on Section 17 (1) (b) of the Registration Act,
1908, to submit that a relinquishment deed, like the NOC being
relied by the Respondents, is compulsorily required to be
registered.
13. It has been argued by learned counsel for the Petitioner
that the alleged sale deed executed by Mrs. Meena Bhalla in
favour of the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 is bad in law and not
valid. Therefore, the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are not the
owners of the said Shop No. 06, which is under the possession
of the Petitioner, and they cannot be regarded as the Landlord
of the said property. Learned counsel further submits that the
Petitioner has already challenged the said sale deed in its suit
2025:JHHC:12513
being O.S. No. 29/2020 pending before the Ld. Court of Civil
Judge Senior Division - IV, Bokaro and the same is still
pending.
14. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, without prejudice to
its aforementioned submissions and in the alternative, submits
that the standard rent of Rs. 55/- per sq. ft., totaling to Rs.
15,950/- per month, for the said Shop, has been fixed by the
Rent Controller in the Impugned Order squarely based on the
report dated 20.12.2017 of the Circle Officer. It has been
pointed out that the said report of the Circle Officer is
completely vague, mechanical and lacking particulars of rent in
the locality where the said Shop is situated. The said report
does not specify at all the description of the shop in the nearby
location which ought to include the area of such shop, rent of
such shop, name of the tenant of such shop, name of the
landlord of such shop, the amenities given by the landlord in
such shop, the condition of the building where such shop is
situated etc.
In the absence of any such specifics, the said report
vaguely and mechanically states that the rent around the area
of the said Shop is Rs. 55/- per sq. ft. It has been argued that
such report is absolutely mechanical, baseless and also
contrary to Section 12 (3) of the JBC Act, 2011.
2025:JHHC:12513
15. Learned counsel further submits that under the JBC Act,
2011, the standard rent can be fixed on the basis of the
procedure given in Section 9 of the JBC Act, 2011. However, in
the present case the Rent Controller has not followed the
procedure for fixation of standard as provided in Section 9. The
other provision under the JBC Act, 2011 to fix standard rent is
Section 12 (3). It has been argued that in the present case
Section 12 (3) has not been followed by the Rent Controller and
the standard rent has been fixed in contravention of Section 12
(3) of JBC Act, 2011. There are no reasons provided by the Rent
Controller in the Impugned Order as to why fixation of standard
rent is not possible on the principles of Section 9. Further, the
Rent Controller in the Impugned Order does not provide for the
location, condition and amenities of the similarly situated other
shops whose rent is taken for fixing the standard rent. Also, the
Rent Controller has not taken the consent of the Petitioner
before final fixation of the standard rent and the date of its
applicability. According to the Petitioner, the manner of fixation
of standard rent provided in Section 12 (3) has not been
followed by the Rent Controller.
16. On the other side, the counsel for Respondent Nos. 2, 3
and 4 submits that there is no illegality in the aforementioned
orders passed by the Rent Controller, Deputy Commissioner
and Commissioner. Learned counsel for the respondents has
2025:JHHC:12513
further argued and supported its statement made in paragraph
21 of their Counter Affidavit. As per the Respondents, the
Petitioner has no right to be in occupation of the said Shop.
According to the said Respondents the Petitioner is in
unauthorized occupation of the said Shop. Further, learned
counsel has argued that the sale deed, which has been
executed by Meena Bhalla in their favour of the concerned
property of Late Om Prakash Bhalla, is valid and legal as there
is a will in favour of Meena Bhalla and the NOC is also in
favour of Meena Bhalla.
The 6th Respondent has also filed its Counter Affidavit,
wherein he has neither denied the Agreement of sale made in
favour of this Petitioner with respect to the said Shop nor he
denied receiving money from the Petitioner towards the
purchase of the said Shop.
17. After hearing learned counsels for the rivalparties and
looking into the averments made in the respective affidavits it
appears thatthe very ownership of the said shop is in dispute,
inasmuch as, the Petitioner had filed a Suit against the 6th
Respondent being Original Suit No. 29/2020 pending before the
learned Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-IV, Bokaro for
specific performance of the agreement of sale, and the 6th
Respondent had filed his written statement dated 08.09.2022 in
the said suit. The 6th Respondent in the said written statement
2025:JHHC:12513
has categorically admitted the execution of the said Agreement
of Sale, dated 17.06.2016, whereby he had agreed to sell the
said Shop to the Petitioner.
On the other hand, Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 have
contended that Mrs. Meena Bhalla who is the vendor of the
property sold in their favour, became the exclusive owner of the
concerned property based on a will of Late Om Prakash Bhalla
and a NOC from the legal heirs of Late Om Prakash Bhalla.
However, the Respondents have failed to bring on record any
order of a competent Court granting probate on the said will.
Further, the said NOC, pursuant to which it has been claimed
that the legal heirs of Late Om Prakash Bhalla have
relinquished their rights in immovable property, is an
unregistered instrument.
Thus, as stated hereinabove, the very ownership of the
said shop is in dispute and a Suit being Original Suit No.
29/2020 is pending before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
18. Further, from the counter Affidavit filed by the
Respondent No. 2 to 4; it is evident that the case of these
Respondents is that the Petitioner is an unauthorized occupant
of the said shop and the Petitioner does not have any tenancy
agreement.
2025:JHHC:12513
When as per the said Respondents, the Petitioner is an
unauthorized occupant of the said Shop, then the Petitioner
cannot be a tenant since a tenant is a person who has been
authorized by the landlord to be in possession of the property
against the payment of rent. The said admission of the
Respondents clearly proves that the Petitioner is not a tenant of
the said Shop and that there is no landlord-tenant relationship
between the Petitioner and the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4.
19. The term 'Tenant' has been defined in Section 2 (l) of the
JBC Act, 2011 to mean any person by whom or on whose
account rent is payable for a building. Learned counsel for the
Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 has not produced any document
showing payment of rent by the Petitioner to the said
Respondents with respect to the said Shop. Also, they have not
produced any tenancy agreement, pursuant to which rent was
payable by the Petitioner to the Respondents No. 2 to 4, with
respect to the said Shop.
On the contrary, the fact admitted by the Respondent
Nos. 2, 3 & 4, at paragraph 21 of their Counter Affidavit is that
the Petitioner does not have any tenancy agreement. In such
facts and circumstances, the Petitioner cannot be regarded as
the tenant of the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 with respect to the
said Shop.
2025:JHHC:12513
20. As there is no landlord - tenant relationship between the
Petitioner and the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4, the said order
passed by the Rent Controller, fixing the standard rent of the
said Shop and directing the Petitioner to pay the said rent, is
wholly without jurisdiction and not sustainable in the eye of
law.
21. Consequently, the orders passed by the Deputy
Commissioner and the Commissioner, confirming the order of
the Rent Controller, are also not sustainable. Even they have
not looked into this aspect of the matter and summarily
rejected the appeal/revision of the Petitioner.
22. Additionally, the report, dated 20.12.2017, of the Circle
Officer, based on which the Rent Controller has fixed the
standard rent of the said Shop, is mechanical, vague and
lacking material particulars. The said report does not provide
the description of the shops, located nearby to the said Shop of
the Petitioner, which ought to include the area of such shop,
rent of such shop, name of the tenant of such shop, name of
the landlord of such shop, the amenities given by the landlord
in such shop, the condition of the building where such shop is
situated and other relevant circumstances. No order, fixing
standard rent of any property, should be passed on such vague
and cryptic reports.
2025:JHHC:12513
23. Having regard to the above discussion the Order dated
31.01.2019 (Annexure-6) passed by 7th Respondent in JBCA
Case No. 32/2016 whereby the petitioner was adjudged as
tenant of the Shop in question,is hereby, quashed and set-
aside.
Consequently,Orderdated 04.01.2021 passed by 5th
Respondent in JBCA Appeal No. 45/2018-19 (Annexure-11),
whereby appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed and also
Order dated 13.12.2021 passed by Commissioner, North
Chotanagpur Division in JBC Revision case No. 2/2021
(Annexure-13), whereby the Revision preferred by the Petitioner
was dismissed; are hereby, quashed and set aside.
24. As a result, the instant application stands allowed.
Pending IAs, if any, is also closed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep/
AFR
