Jharkhand High Court
Shipra Banerjee And Others vs Om Prakash Lal Gupta on 7 October, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S. A. No. 293 of 2017
With
I.A. No. 12840 of 2025
Shipra Banerjee and Others ... ... Appellants
Versus
Om Prakash Lal Gupta ... ... Respondent
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Vibhor Mayank, Advocate
(Joined Online)
For the Respondent : Mr. Vishal Kr. Tiwary, Advocate
: Mr. Pratyush Shounikya, Advocate
---
19/07.10.2025
1. This petition has been filed for framing additional substantial
question of law said to be involved in the present case.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the
judgment passed by the learned 1st appellate court, paragraphs 15 and
17, to submit that the learned 1st appellate court has referred to the
lease deed i.e. Exhibit-4 to ascertain the terms and conditions of
tenancy which are at variance with the provisions of Jharkhand
Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011. He has referred
to Section 19 of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction)
Control Act, 2011 to submit that as per the provisions, the Act would
prevail over any agreement between the parties.
3. The learned counsel has also submitted that the default in
payment of rent was less than 4 months and as the per the lease deed
four months' default period has been prescribed which has been used
against the plaintiff to hold that the tenant was not a defaulter. He has
further submitted that the plea of personal necessity has been
completely negated on the ground that the lease deed did not contain a
clause that the tenant could be evicted on the ground of personal
necessity. He has further submitted that the learned 1 st appellate court
has held that the plaintiff had given a security of tenure of 28 years by
way of registered lease deed and under no circumstances the tenant
could be evicted.
4. He has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court reported in (1980) 3 SCC 348 [Pradesh Kumar Bajpai vs.
Binod Behari Sarkar] to submit that a provision in the lease deed
cannot override the specific provision of the Tenancy Act.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer
for framing an additional substantial question of law and has
submitted that the aforesaid questions do not arise in the present
appeal in the light of the registered lease deed which is binding on the
parties.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the nature of the judgment passed by the learned 1st
appellate court, this Court is of the considered view that an additional
substantial question of law arises in the present case, which is as
follows:-
Whether the learned courts have failed to appreciate that
the Rent Control Act being a special legislation would
prevail over the lease agreement or any other contractual
obligations in view of Section 19 of Jharkhand Building
(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011?
7. With the consent of the parties, post this case for final disposal
on 17th November, 2025.
8. The learned counsel for the parties are directed to submit the
synopsis of argument with supporting documents and also the
provisions of law prior to the next date.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
07.10.2025
Rakesh/-
