Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1099 (JHR)

Md. Muslim Ansari v. Brigadier Ravi Kumar

2021-12-22

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2021
JUDGMENT : I.A. No.4406 of 2021: 1. This case is taken up through video conferencing. 2. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed for condonation of delay of 193 days in filing the present revision application on the ground that the delay so caused is not intentional rather the petitioner has been continuously pursuing the legal remedies before different forums. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and the revision preferred before the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Ranchi were only to somehow continue with illegal possession of the premises. It is further submitted that the petitioner, without even filing any proper application against execution of eviction order and decree before the competent court had earlier filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.3024 of 2021 just to delay the execution proceeding. The petitioner continued with unnecessary litigations with ill motive to deprive the opposite party of the fruits of the said decree. 4. I am of the considered view that the delay in filing the present revision application has been caused due to the reason that the petitioner had been pursuing his legal remedies before wrong forum. The mistake committed by the petitioner appears to be bona fide and as such in the interest of justice, the delay so caused in filing the present revision application is hereby condoned. 5. I.A No. 4406 of 2021 is accordingly allowed. Civil Revision No.07 of 2021: 6. The present Civil Revision has been filed against the order dated 05.07.2019 passed by the Rent Controller-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ranchi under section 19(1)(e) of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 (in short the Act, 2011) in J.B.C Case No. 114 of 2016, whereby the learned court below has allowed the petition filed by the opposite party on the ground of non-renewal of lease after completion of nine years of registered deed of lease on 30.09.2016 and accordingly the eviction order was passed directing the petitioner to handover possession of the shop in question in favour of the opposite party within a fortnight. 7. The main contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner and the opposite party (the landlord) had entered into a lease agreement on 12.09.2007 (effective from 01.09.2007) with respect to shop no.3, measuring an area of 250 sq. 7. The main contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner and the opposite party (the landlord) had entered into a lease agreement on 12.09.2007 (effective from 01.09.2007) with respect to shop no.3, measuring an area of 250 sq. ft., situated at first floor of the marketing complex, namely, Neelam Complex, Doranda Bazar, Ranchi. The period of lease was for nine years and was ending on 30.09.2016 subject to renewal of lease at the instance of the lessee. It is further submitted that when the period of lease ended on 30.09.2016, the petitioner approached the opposite party and requested him to renew the lease as he was an old tenant and was ready to pay the enhanced rent as per the old terms of lease, however, the opposite party refused to renew the lease and as such the petitioner issued legal notice to him on 28.11.2016 requesting inter alia to renew the lease deed but he neither replied the same nor renewed the lease deed. In the meantime, the opposite party filed an application before the Rent Controller-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ranchi under section 19(1)(e) of the Act, 2011, which was registered as J.B.C Case No. 114 of 216 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 05.07.2019, directing the petitioner to vacate the shop in question in favour of the opposite party. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal being J.B.C Appeal No.7-R-15/2019-20 before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, which was dismissed as not maintainable. Thereafter, the petitioner filed revision being J.B.C Revision No.15/2021 under section 37 of the Act, 2011 before the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, however, the same was also dismissed vide order dated 16.08.2021, holding that the revision was not maintainable before the Commissioner and the petitioner was directed to follow the procedure as prescribed in section 21(8) of the Act, 2011. It is also submitted that the Rent Controller completely misdirected itself in appreciating the stand of the opposite party ignoring the case made out by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the Rent Controller completely misdirected itself in appreciating the stand of the opposite party ignoring the case made out by the petitioner. The petitioner was always ready and willing to renew the lease on market value and right from 01.10.2016, he had been requesting the opposite party to accept the enhanced rent as per the terms and conditions of old lease and if the opposite party was not agreeable with the said condition, he was ready to pay the rent whatever the other persons in the similar shops were paying, but the opposite party kept on orally demanding exorbitant amount of Rs.15,000/- per month. 8. The learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the conduct of the petitioner itself suggests that he is trying to delay the process of execution of the order of eviction and thereby depriving the opposite party to get the fruit of the decree. It is further submitted that as per the terms of the lease, the petitioner was required to approach the opposite party for formulating fresh agreeable terms and conditions to execute new lease deed, however, he failed to do so and thus his possession over the said shop was illegal after expiry of the lease period. Under the said circumstance, the court below has rightly passed the order of eviction of the petitioner. It is also submitted that this Court exercise revisional jurisdiction under the Act, 2011 may not enter into factual findings of the Rent Controller unless the same is found perverse or there is any apparent error on the face of the record. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner has sought challenge to the order dated 05.07.2019 passed by the Rent Controller-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ranchi, whereby he has been directed to vacate the shop in question in favour of the opposite party. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Dilbahar Singh, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 78 , while discussing the extent of interference by the High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction under the Rent Control Act enforced in different States of India, has held as under:- 43. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Dilbahar Singh, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 78 , while discussing the extent of interference by the High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction under the Rent Control Act enforced in different States of India, has held as under:- 43. We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court/first appellate authority because on reappreciation of the evidence, its view is different from the court/authority below. The consideration or examination of the evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under these Acts is confined to find out that finding of facts recorded by the court/authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by court/authority below, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself as to the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to reappreciate or reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity.” 11. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity.” 11. Thus, the High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction under any Rent Control Act is not supposed to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the original/first appellate court only because on appreciation of the evidence, its view may be different from the court below. However, if it appears to the High Court that a finding of fact recorded by court below, is perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of material evidence on record or such finding is based on no evidence or on misreading of evidence or is grossly erroneous or it results in gross miscarriage of justice, the same may accordingly be corrected. The High Court in its revisional jurisdiction is required to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality and propriety of any decision or order impugned and it may also examine as to whether the order impugned suffers from any procedural impropriety or irregularity. 12. In the present case, the lessor/landlord (the opposite party) claimed before the Rent Controller that the lessee/tenant (the petitioner) did not make any request for renewal before expiry of the lease, whereas the claim of the lessee was that he repeatedly requested the opposite party for renewal of lease but he failed to execute the same. The Rent Controller observed that failure of the lessor in renewing the lease or executing fresh lease deed can be said to be violative of the terms and conditions of the lease deed which may lead to alleged breach of contract by him but the said aspect cannot be considered in an eviction suit filed under the Act, 2011. I do agree with the said view taken by the court below primarily for the reason that the period of old lease had expired and the lease agreement was not renewed by the parties on the agreed terms and conditions. 13. Otherwise also, on bare perusal of the lease deed dated 12.09.2007, it appears that the period of the lease was for a period of nine years which had expired on 30.09.2016. 13. Otherwise also, on bare perusal of the lease deed dated 12.09.2007, it appears that the period of the lease was for a period of nine years which had expired on 30.09.2016. The said fact has also been admitted by the petitioner. However, he claims for renewal of the lease deed. To support the said claim, the petitioner has put emphasis on Clause 2 of the lease deed dated 12.09.2007 which is reproduced hereinbelow:- “2. That the Lessor and his heirs/successors hereby undertaken to grant renewed of the said Lease for the said shop/office in Neelam Complex in case the Lessee so desires, the Lessor and Lessee have to come to fresh terms and conditions after expiry of this Lease period of nine years.” 14. It is evident that there were two conditions for renewal of the lease; one is the desire of the lessee and another is preparation of fresh terms and conditions agreeable by the Lessor and Lessee. 15. Even if the contention of the petitioner is accepted that he was willing for renewal of the lease, unless fresh agreeable terms and conditions were arrived at by the parties, he was not entitled to continue with the possession of the said shop. On perusal of record, it appears that the parties could not agree with the quantum of rent so as to execute fresh lease. Though the petitioner has contended that the opposite party has been demanding exorbitant amount for execution of fresh lease, the said contention is not worth consideration in the revisional proceeding. 16. The present revision petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.