Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1728 (JHR)

Naushad Khan v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-10-12

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2019
JUDGMENT Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder order 23.01.2017 passed in H.R.C. Case No. 15/2015 has been challenged, inter alia on the ground that once the Rent Controller, in exercise of power conferred, adjudicated the issue, cannot review his own order by recalling the earlier order passed. 2. It is the case of the petitioner, who is the tenant and in whose favour shops have been sub-letted by the Committee, respondent nos. 4 to 6, that the basic amenities, which were to be given to the shops in question have been denied without resorting to any appropriate proceeding under the prevalent law, which led the petitioner to approach the S.D.O-cum-Rent Controller by filing H.R.C. Case No. 15/2015 and after hearing the parties, the order dated 10.07.2015/03.08.2015 has been passed whereby and whereunder the S.D.O-cum-Rent Controller has directed to forthwith restore the electricity connection of the shop of the petitioner. However, when order dated 10.07.2015/03.08.2015 was not complied with by the Opposite Parties, the petitioner had filed an application dated 18.09.2015 under Section 40 of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011, upon which, the S.D.O-cum-Rent Controller vide order dated 03.08.2016 came to the conclusion that for non-compliance of interim order dated 10.07.2015/03.08.2015, the Opposite Parties are liable to be sentenced for a period of three months and further liable to pay fine of Rs. 3000/-. Accordingly, notice was directed to be issued upon the Opposite Parties as to why such imprisonment and penalty be not inflicted upon them. 3. The S.D.O-cum-Rent Controller, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur subsequent to the aforesaid order has passed order dated 23.01.2017, by which the earlier orders dated 10.07.2015/03.08.2015 and 03.08.2016 have been recalled, against which, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Mr. Niranjan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 23.01.2017 on the ground that once the order has been passed by the S.D.Ocum-Rent Controller, he is having no power to recall the said order since there is no power of review by the S.D.O-cum-Rent Controller, as provided under the applicable Act. 5. Mr. Akash Bhushan, A.C to learned Sr. 5. Mr. Akash Bhushan, A.C to learned Sr. S.C. I, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State while defending the order dated 23.01.2017 has submitted that no illegality has been committed by the Rent Controller in view of the reason that the Rent Controller subsequent to the earlier orders have realised that the proceeding has been initiated under Section 17 of the Act, 2011, prior to enactment of Act, 2011, which has been implemented with effect 15.04.2015 by virtue of notification no. 2660 dated 16.05.2016 and as such the earlier orders passed in pursuant to order dated 10.07.2015/03.08.2015 since was not enacted at that time, therefore, the said order have been construed to be without jurisdiction by the Rent Controller and if any jurisdictional error has been found subsequent to passing of that order, the authority who has passed the order on wrong notion has got inherent power to rectify the defect by recalling the earlier orders. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 6. Further submission has been made by him that the petitioner is no way going to be prejudiced because the Rent Controller has granted liberty to file fresh application under the applicable law. 7. Upon this, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition with a liberty to file fresh application before the Rent Controller, in view of the liberty granted vide order dated 23.01.2017 by the S.D.O-cumRent Controller, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur. 8. Such submission has not been objected by the learned State counsel. 9. In view of the aforesaid submissions, advanced by counsel for the parties, this writ petition is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to approach before the S.D.O-cum-Rent Controller, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur in pursuance to the liberty granted to the petitioner. 10. If such application would be filed, the S.D.O-cum-Rent Controller, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur will decide the same without being prejudiced by the order of withdrawal of the writ petition. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.