JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. Both the appeals arise out of a common order. The appeal being L.P.A. No. 465 of 2023 has been filed by the writ petitioner, namely, Rounak Jaiswal and the appeal being L.P.A. No. 395 of 2023 has been filed by the respondent no.5 to the writ petition, namely, Bhola Prasad Swarnkar. Prayer: 2. The instant appeals under clause 10 of the letters patent are directed against the order/judgment dated 14.06.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 662 of 2022, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition has been disposed by quashing and setting aside the order dated 16.12.2021 passed by the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh in House Rent Control Revision No.06 of 2020, whereby the order dated 25.04.2018 passed by the respondent no.4-Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-House Rent Controller, Dumri in H.R. Case No. 05/2017-18 and the order dated 27.09.2019 passed by the respondent no. 3 – the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Giridih in H.R.C Appeal No. 01/2018 have been quashed and set aside. Facts: 3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which requires to be enumerated herein, reads as under: The land under Khata No. 7, Plot No. 641, area 1.53 Acres, Plot No. 639 and 642 having an area 19 decimals total 2.02 acres belongings to one Khudabux Khan, situated at village-Isri, P.S.-Dumri (Now Nimiaghat) District Hazaribagh (now Giridih) who died issueless. Since he could not maintain the above referred land of khata no. 7/2 so he surrendered those lands to the then Ex-Landlord Raja Ram Bahadur Singh of Palganj Estate in March 1930 who in turn accepted the same and treated it as his Bakast land. Thereafter, on request of Laljee Bhagat, the Ex-Landlord settled 1.53 acres of land under khata No. 7, Plot No. 641 and 6 decimal under, plot No. 642 total area 1.59 acres of land in Raiyati right after receiving the Salami of Rs. 40/- by giving butta Khata - 7/2 and put him in khas possession. A Raiyati Hukumnama dated 14.03.1930 was also issued by the then landlord in favour of Laljee Bhagat i.e. grand-father of the petitioner. 40/- by giving butta Khata - 7/2 and put him in khas possession. A Raiyati Hukumnama dated 14.03.1930 was also issued by the then landlord in favour of Laljee Bhagat i.e. grand-father of the petitioner. After the settlement of the land Laljee Bhagat, continuously paying rent to ex-landlord and after abolition of Jamindari system to the State Government throughout his life time and after his death his son and grand-sons Late Ramesh Bhagat and Late Dinesh Bhagat paid rent and obtained rent receipt thereof. Laljee Bhagat constructed several rooms and residential house on lands of plot No. 641 and 642 of Khata No. 7 and after his death his sons Ramesh Bhagat and Dinesh Bhagat come in possession over the saidlands measuring its total areas 1.59 acres of khata No. 7/2. Dinesh Bhagat out of his share let out some of the shops including residential area to different tenants including the Father of the Respondent No. 5 on monthly rent of Rs. 295/- and realized monthly rent during his life time and after his death petitioner is realising monthly rent from the Res. No. 5 without any dispute. The father of the Petitioner Late Dinesh Bhagat applied in Anchal Office for issuance of land possession certificate with respect to khata no.-7/2, plot no. 641 and 642 and the same was issued in his favour. The Respondent No. 5 was inducted as tenant by the father of the petitioner Late Dinesh Bhagat let out shop including residential area consisting of rooms for residence and one shop measuring an area 1260 sq. Feet on monthly rent of Rs. 295/- and the said rent was realised from him during his life time and after his death the present petitioner appellant from the Respondent No. 5. The writ-petitioner asked the Res. No. 5 to enhance monthly rent as per Market Valuation in the light of nearby locality, but the Res. No. 5 refused to enhance any more of the monthly rent of the aforesaid premises. Thereafter, after September 2017, the respondent no.5 stopped paying rent. The writ petitioner filed an application before the respondent no. 4 under Sections 9 to 12 of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011 for fixing fair rent of the aforementioned premises which was registered as H.R. Case No. 05/2017-18. That the Respondent No. 5 appeared and filed their show cause and the Res. The writ petitioner filed an application before the respondent no. 4 under Sections 9 to 12 of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011 for fixing fair rent of the aforementioned premises which was registered as H.R. Case No. 05/2017-18. That the Respondent No. 5 appeared and filed their show cause and the Res. No.4 after hearing both the parties and going through the evidence on record passed on order dated 25-04-2018 by which he ordered to fix the rent of shop of Rs. 15 per sq. feet and Rs. 10 per sq. feet for residential area, altogether total area 1260 sq. feet. It was also directed to both the parties to enter into an agreement of rent for 12 months and to issue rent receipt to the tenant Res. No. 4 further directed the Res. No. 5 to pay the electricity bill and water bill separately. Being aggrieved of the order of the Res. No. 4 passed in H.R. case No. 5 of 2017-18 the Res. no. 5 preferred an H.R.C. Appeal No. - 01 of 2018 before the Res. No. 3 who after hearing both the parties, the learned appellate court vide his order dt. 27-09-2019 dismissed the appeal of the Res. no. 5 and affirmed the order of the Res. No. 4. Being aggrieved the Res. no. 5 preferred a revision vide House Rent Control Revision No. 6 of 2020 before the Res. No. 2, on similar grounds taken in their show cause before the Res. No. 4, wherein, the respondent no.2 vide order dated 16-12-2021 set aside both the order of trial court dt. 25-04-2018 passed in case no. 5/2017-18 as well as order dt. 27-09-2019 passed in H.R.C. appeal No. 1/2018. Being aggrieved thereof, the writ petitioner preferred writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 662 of 2022, wherein the writ petition has been disposed by quashing and setting aside the order dated 16.12.2021 passed by the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh against which the present letters patent appeals have been preferred. 4. It is evident from the factual aspect that the lands appertaining to Plot No. 641, Khata No. 7/2 situated at village Isri, P.S. Dumri (now Nimiaghat), District- Hazaribagh (now Giridih), measuring an area of 1.53 acres was recorded in the name of Khuda Bux Khan during the last survey settlement. 4. It is evident from the factual aspect that the lands appertaining to Plot No. 641, Khata No. 7/2 situated at village Isri, P.S. Dumri (now Nimiaghat), District- Hazaribagh (now Giridih), measuring an area of 1.53 acres was recorded in the name of Khuda Bux Khan during the last survey settlement. Khuda Bux Khan had surrendered the said land to the ex-landlord and thereafter the said land along with 6 decimals land of Plot No. 642 of the same khata was settled to Laljee Bhagat by putting him in khas possession of the same. A raiyati Hukumnama dated 14.03.1930 was also issued by the ex-landlord in favour of Laljee Bhagat. It is also submitted that after vesting of Zamindari, the State of Bihar recognized Laljee Bhagat as raiyat of the said land who paid rent of the same till his life time. It is the case of the writ petitioner that Laljee Bhagat had constructed several rooms on the said land and subsequently Dinesh Bhagat S/o - Laljee Bhagat let out some rooms of his share to different persons including the father of the respondent no. 5 of L.P.A. No.465 of 2023 namely, Murlidhar Swarnkar, who had given the premises on rent consisting of rooms for residence and one shop measuring an area of 1260 sq. ft. on monthly rent of Rs. 295/- and the said rent was realized from him during his life time and after his death from the respondent no. 5 till September, 2017. The writ petitioner filed an application before the respondent no. 4 under Sections 9 to 12 of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011 for fixing fair rent of the aforementioned premises which was registered as H.R. Case No. 05/2017-18. The respondent no. 5 appeared and filed his show cause disputing the relationship of landlord and tenant between the writ petitioner and the respondent no. 5 as well as that no agreement with respect to the said premises was ever paid by the respondent no. 5 to the writ petitioner. The original authority passed an order on 25.04.2018 fixing rent for the shop area and residential area as well as directed the parties to execute lease/rent agreement with respect to the said premises for a period of 12 months in the light of rent fixed by the said court. The respondent no. 5 to the writ petitioner. The original authority passed an order on 25.04.2018 fixing rent for the shop area and residential area as well as directed the parties to execute lease/rent agreement with respect to the said premises for a period of 12 months in the light of rent fixed by the said court. The respondent no. 5, being aggrieved with the order dated 25.04.2018, filed appeal being H.R.C. Appeal No. 01 of 2018 which was dismissed vide order dated 27.09.2019 against which the revision was filed being House Rent Controller Revision No. 06 of 2020 which was allowed vide order dated 16.12.2021 setting aside the orders passed by the original and appellate authority. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the said order, preferred writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No. 662 of 2022 challenging the said order on the ground that there is no proper consideration of the factual aspect based upon the evidence by the revisional authority who without appreciating the document and the factual aspect, has reversed the order passed by the original as well as the appellate authority which cannot be said to be permissible in the eyes of law. 5. The learned writ court called upon the respondent-State as also the respondent no.5 to the writ petition [appellant of L.P.A. No. 395 of 2023]. The learned Single Judge on appreciation of the rival submission, came to the conclusion that the Commissioner since has arrived at a finding that the order was passed without appreciating the documents and as such, it would have been just and proper for the Commissioner to remit the matter before the original authority for fresh consideration of the issue. The learned Single Judge on the aforesaid ground has remitted the matter for fresh consideration of the issue which is the subject matter of the present appeals. Argument on behalf of the writ petitioner [appellant of L.P.A. No. 465 of 2023] : 6. Mr. Deepak Kr. The learned Single Judge on the aforesaid ground has remitted the matter for fresh consideration of the issue which is the subject matter of the present appeals. Argument on behalf of the writ petitioner [appellant of L.P.A. No. 465 of 2023] : 6. Mr. Deepak Kr. Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant in L.P.A. No. 465 of 2023 has submitted that the learned Single Judge without appreciating the factual aspect in right perspective as the revisional authority has quashed and set aside the order passed by the original as well as the appellate authority which is based upon the appreciation of the relevant documents of establishing the landlord and tenant relationship in between the writ petitioner and the respondent no.5 and hence, the order passed by the revisional authority ought to have been quashed and set aside but instead of doing so, the matter has been remitted before the original authority for deciding the issue afresh, hence, the impugned order suffers from error on the ground that when all the documents were there, then where is the question of re-consideration of the issue afresh. 7. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the impugned order, therefore, suffers from error. Argument on behalf of the Respondent No. 5 [appellant of L.P.A. No. 395 of 2023] : 8. While on the other hand, Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 in L.P.A. No. 465 of 2023 [appellant of L.P.A. No. 395 of 2023] has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge remitting the matter before the original authority suffers from error since the Commissioner on adjudication of the factual aspect as also the documents, has quashed the impugned order and hence, the finding to the effect as has been recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order that the document has not properly been appreciated of having landlord and tenant relationship in between the parties cannot at all be said to be justified, hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge remitting the matter for fresh hearing is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Argument on behalf of the respondent-State: 9. Mr. Argument on behalf of the respondent-State: 9. Mr. Praveen Akhauri, learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that there is no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge since the Commissioner has come to the conclusion that the documentary evidence has not been appreciated hence instead of remitting the matter before the original authority, the entire proceeding has been quashed by interfering with the order passed by the original as also the appellate authority. 10. It has been contended that when the Commissioner has come to the conclusion that the document has not been appreciated then it was incumbent upon the revisional authority to remit the matter to the original authority for adjudication of the issue afresh after going through the documentary evidence regarding the proof of landlord and tenant relationship in between the parties. 11. The learned counsel, on the aforesaid premise, has submitted that if that led the learned Single Judge to pass order by remitting the matter before the original authority for appreciation of the document afresh, the same cannot be said to suffer from error. Analysis: 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appreciated the argument advanced on their behalf as also gone across the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. 13. The basic issue which was agitated before the Rent Controller was for fixation of rent based upon the claim of the writ petitioner of having landlord of the piece of land. The document had been placed before the authority in support of the proof of having right over the property in question which is based upon the settlement made by the ex-landlord after the land having been surrendered by one Khuda Bax Khan. The writ petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid settlement and being subsequent purchaser is claiming the possession over the land in question. 14. The writ petitioner has further claimed that the respondent no.5 [appellant of L.P.A. No. 395 of 2023] is the tenant who used to pay rent but without any agreement but the amount so meagre, as such, an application was filed for fixation of rent being H.R. Case No. 05 of 2017-18. The Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-House Controller has passed the order in favour of the writ petitioner for entering into an agreement and fixing the rent. The Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-House Controller has passed the order in favour of the writ petitioner for entering into an agreement and fixing the rent. The aforesaid order of the Rent Controller was carried to the appeal being H.R.C. Appeal No. 01 of 2018 and the same was upheld. The said order of the appellate authority was carried to the revisional authority wherein the revisional authority has quashed and set aside the orders passed by the original as well as the appellate authority on the ground that the relevant documents have not been appreciated. Aggrieved thereof, writ petitioner filed writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 662 of 2022. 15. The learned Single Judge has remitted the matter for de novo proceeding for fixation of rent as per the application of the writ petitioner which is under challenge. 16. It is evident from the order passed either by the original authority or by the appellate authority which have been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge that the said authorities have passed the order primarily on the ground that no opportunity to adduce evidence was granted to the respondent no.5 [appellant of L.P.A. No. 395 of 2023]. 17. The Commissioner has also accepted the aforesaid fact which led the Commissioner to interfere with the impugned order but the learned Single Judge has considered that the fact about the setting aside the order passed by the revisional authority has been held to be correct in view of the fact that the order was not passed after providing due opportunity to adduce evidence to the respondent no.5 [appellant of L.P.A. No. 395 of 2023] but the Commissioner instead of remitting the matter for hearing afresh by providing opportunity to the parties to lead evidence by way of documents in support of their case, has closed the matter. 18. The learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that the closure of the matter would not be said to be just and proper rather the matter ought to have been remitted by the Commissioner himself by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the original as well as appellate authority but instead of doing so, the entire matter has been closed. The aforesaid finding is under challenge on behalf of the parties in the present cases. 19. The appellant of L.P.A. No. 465 of 2023 has challenged the order passed by the Commissioner. The aforesaid finding is under challenge on behalf of the parties in the present cases. 19. The appellant of L.P.A. No. 465 of 2023 has challenged the order passed by the Commissioner. The reason which has been assigned by the learned Single Judge while interfering with the order passed by the Commissioner is that the adequate opportunity to adduce evidence has not been provided to deny the claim of the writ petitioner in establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant. 20. The learned Single Judge on that admitted fact has interfered with the impugned order passed by the revisional authority since the opportunity has not been provided to the respondent no.5 [appellant of L.P.A. No. 395 of 2023], this Court is of the view that the order passed by the Commissioner cannot be said to suffer from an error reason being that the sole ground taken by the Commissioner is that the respondent no.5 [appellant of L.P.A. No. 395 of 2023] has not been provided with the opportunity to adduce evidence. 21. The law is well settled that no order can be passed against a party without providing opportunity if the same leads to civil consequence. Here, the fact of providing no opportunity to the respondent no.5 [appellant of L.P.A. No. 395 of 2023] to produce relevant documents has not been disputed. 22. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the Commissioner while interfering with the orders passed by the original as also the appellate authority, cannot be said to suffer from error. 23. The learned Single Judge has considered the aforesaid fact and accordingly, has refused to interfere with the impugned order so far as the interference shown by the revisional authority with the order dated 25.04.2018 passed by the respondent no.4-Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-House Rent Controller, Dumri in H.R. Case No. 05/2017-18 and the order dated 27.09.2019 passed by the respondent no. 3 – the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Giridih in H.R.C Appeal No. 01/2018, is concerned. 24. The learned Single Judge has come to such conclusion that the opportunity of hearing of producing the relevant documents ought to have been provided to the respondent no.5 [appellant of L.P.A. No. 395 of 2023] and in absence of such opportunity, the original authority has passed the order, hence, the same cannot be said to be just and proper. 25. The learned Single Judge has come to such conclusion that the opportunity of hearing of producing the relevant documents ought to have been provided to the respondent no.5 [appellant of L.P.A. No. 395 of 2023] and in absence of such opportunity, the original authority has passed the order, hence, the same cannot be said to be just and proper. 25. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the appellant in both the appeals as also the State. Conclusion: 26. The law is well settled that on technicality nobody can be allowed to take advantage on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice of not providing opportunity, the order passed by the administrative/quasi-judicial authority or the court of law is being interfered with, the proper course will be to remit the matter before the authority for consideration of the issue afresh. 27. The learned Single Judge has proceeded on the aforesaid legal premise by taking into consideration the fact that the original court has not providing opportunity to the respondent no.5 [appellant of L.P.A. No. 395 of 2023], therefore, this Court is of the view that while doing so, the learned Single Judge has remitted the matter before the original authority for the effective adjudication of the issue raised by the writ petitioner by providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the respondent no.5 [appellant of L.P.A. No. 395 of 2023] also which according to our considered view, cannot be said to suffer from error. 28. Accordingly, the both the appeals fail and stand dismissed. 29. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 30. Let the LCR be returned to the court concerned, forthwith.