Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1883 (JHR)

Binod Minz v. State of Jharkhand

2019-11-20

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2019
ORDER : In pursuance to the order dated 11.11.2019, Mr. Satya Prakash, at present holding the post of Sub-Divisional Officer and in that capacity is also Rent Controller under the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011. 2. The writ petition has been filed for a direction upon the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Rent Controller to allow the eviction suit filed by the petitioner. The reason for filing writ petition with such relief that the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Rent Controller is not accepting the suit. 3. This Court, after having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on 11.11.2019, has passed the following order :- “6/Dated: 11th November, 2019 This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of coming into effect of Jharkhand Buildings (Lease Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 implemented with effect from 15.04.2015, the Sub Divisional Officer, Chainpur cum Rent Controller having power to adjudicate upon the eviction suit but Sub Divisional Officer in the capacity of Rent Controller is not accepting the petition. The matter was taken up on 06.11.2019 and on that date the following order was passed: “It is a case under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the petitioner has agitated the grievance to the effect that he has filed eviction case before the Rent Controller-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Chainpur in exercise of power conferred to it under Bihar Lease Eviction Control Act, 2011 way back on 01.02.2018 but as yet it has not been accepted. Learned AC to learned AG has prayed to list this case on Monday so that she may come with the instruction as to why the eviction case is not being accepted by the Rent Controller-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Chainpur. List this case on 11.11.2019.” Ms. Aparajita Bhardwaj, learned A.C to A.G on instruction of the Sub Divisional Officer, Chainpur cum Rent Controller has submitted that the said quasi-judicial authority has instructed that he will file affidavit as per the opinion of the Government Pleader. The question herein is that when the statute is very specific, conferring power upon the Rent Controller cum Sub Divisional Officer, this Court failed to understand why such application is not being entertained, leaving the party to move here and there. The question herein is that when the statute is very specific, conferring power upon the Rent Controller cum Sub Divisional Officer, this Court failed to understand why such application is not being entertained, leaving the party to move here and there. In view thereof, let the Sub Divisional Officer, Chainpur cum Rent Controller to appear in person and satisfy this Court the reason not to accept the eviction application. List this case on 20.11.2019.” 4. Ms. Aparajita Bhardwaj, learned A.C. to A.G., on instruction of the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Rent Controller who is present in the Court, has submitted that he is not disputing about the conferment of power to act as Rent Controller by holding the post of Sub-Divisional Officer of a sub-division of a district. 5. Further submission has been made that the said application will be accepted and will be decided in accordance with law. 6. This Court, after having heard learned counsel for the parties including Mr. Satya Prakash, Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Rent Controller and considering the object and spirit of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 which has been effected from 15.04.2015 by which the power has been vested to deal with the eviction cases by virtue of the Act enacted in the year 2000 under which the civil court has been conferred with the said jurisdiction but after the enactment of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011, the power to deal with eviction cases has been conferred upon the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Rent Controller and as such, the Sub-Divisional Officer being the competent authority is supposed to decide if any eviction suit is filed by any of the aggrieved landlord/party. 7. The petitioner, being the landlord, has approached to the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Rent Controller but the application having not been accepted, therefore, prayer has been made to pass an order for allowing the eviction suit. 8. Although the said prayer is very peculiar because the writ court cannot adjudicate about the relationship of landlord and tenant but the question herein is that when the statutory authority, having been delegated with the power under the statute, if not performing the duty, the litigant has no option but to approach this Court and on this pretext this writ petition has been filed. 9. 9. It is settled position of law so far as the provision of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is concerned that if the authority is not acting as per the conferment of power under a legislation, it will be said to be inaction on his part and in that circumstances a writ in the nature of mandamus is required to be issued. 10. But herein the authority has failed in discharge of his statutory duty which compelled the petitioner to approach this Court. 11. Since submission has been made on behalf of the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Rent Controller in his presence that the application would be accepted and will be decided in accordance with law, therefore, the writ petition is disposed of. 12. However, before parting with the order, it requires to refer that the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Rent Controller has failed in discharging his statutory duty, this Court deems it fit and proper to impose a cost of Rs.11,000/-upon him to be paid from his own pocket. 13. If the amount would not be deposited, the same would be recovered from him treating it to be a public demand. 14. Let this order be communicated to the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district.