JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5. 2. The prayer in the writ petition is made for quashing of the order dated 09.10.2023 passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi in J.B.C. Revision Case No.30 of 2022 passed in favour of the respondent No.5 under Section 19(1)(a) of Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 whereby the order dated 09.07.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (Respondent No.3) in J.B.C. Appeal No.82R15 of 2018-19 has been set aside and direction has been issued to the petitioner to vacate the premises situated in Shop No.13, Main Road, Ranchi Club Complex, Ranchi and handover the possession to the respondent No.5. 3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondent No.5 is the owner of one shop in ground floor and mezzanine floor under Shop No.13 situated at Ranchi Club Complex, Main Road, Ranchi. He further submits that the petitioner approached the respondent No.5 for renting the shop for a showroom in name and style of ‘Satya Paul’ in the year 2010 and accordingly, the petitioner and respondent No.5 entered into a lease agreement dated 06.10.2010. By the said lease agreement, the respondent No.5 agreed to let out the shop with all fixtures on a rent of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) per month for the period of 11 months contained in Annexure-1. He further submits that after expiry of the said lease agreement dated 06.10.2010, petitioner and respondent No.5 entered into a lease agreement dated 06.10.2011 for the period of 11 months, reiterating the terms and conditions of the earlier agreement contained in Annexure-2 and further agreement was entered on 01.09.2012. He submits that the petitioner was in possession of the shop and was complying with all the terms and conditions of the agreement and there was a good relation between the petitioner and respondent No.5. He submits that after the expiry of the lease agreement dated 01.09.2012, the petitioner kept requesting the respondent No.5 to renew the lease in favour of the petitioner, but the respondent No.5 kept assuring the petitioner of renewing it when he visits Ranchi, as he was posted outside Ranchi. He submits that after the expiry of the lease agreement dated 01.09.2012, the petitioner kept requesting the respondent No.5 to renew the lease in favour of the petitioner, but the respondent No.5 kept assuring the petitioner of renewing it when he visits Ranchi, as he was posted outside Ranchi. He further submits that respondent No.5 failed to renew the lease agreement, the petitioner was constrained to send a letter dated 13.05.2016 to the respondent No.5 requesting him to renew the lease agreement. He further submits that instead of renewing the lease agreement, the respondent No.5 served a legal notice dated 20.05.2016 on the petitioner for eviction of the petitioner from the shop in question. Subsequently, respondent No.5 filed a petition bearing J.B.C. (Eviction) Case No.51/2016 before the Rent Controller-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Ranchi under Section 19(1)(a), 19(1)(d) and 19(1)(e) of Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). He submits that by order dated 22.01.2019, the Rent Comptroller-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi has been pleased to direct the petitioner to pay the remaining arrear of rent and directed to vacate the premises in question. He then submits that the petitioner herein moved to the Appellate Authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi vide order dated 09.07.2022 passed in J.B.C. Appeal No.82R15 of 2018-19 under Section 36 of the Act has been pleased to set aside the order of the Rent Comptroller dated 22.01.2019 and allowed the petitioner to pay the arrears and to continue in the premises in question. He then submits that against that order, the respondent No.5 moved before the Commissioner in Revision which was numbered as J.B.C. Revision Case No.30/2022 under Section 37 of the Act. He submits that the Commissioner has allowed the revision by order dated 09.10.2023 whereby the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 09.07.2022 in J.B.C. Appeal No.82R15 of 2018-19 has been set aside. He submits that the learned Revisional Court has erred in deciding the said revision holding that in light of Section 19(1)(a) of the Act, the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of tenancy. He submits that however the learned Appellate Court has allowed to continue in light of payment which comes under Section 19(1)(d) as such the Revisional Court has allowed the proceeding erroneously and in view of that the order is bad in law. 4. Mr. He submits that however the learned Appellate Court has allowed to continue in light of payment which comes under Section 19(1)(d) as such the Revisional Court has allowed the proceeding erroneously and in view of that the order is bad in law. 4. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 submits that the petitioner was in possession of the shop and although he initially complied with the terms and conditions stipulated in the lease agreement but soon thereafter, he violated the terms and conditions of the lease agreement and there was no good relation between the petitioner and the respondent No.5 as in spite of providing several opportunities, the petitioner herein has not complied the terms and conditions of the agreement. He submits that the petitioner failed in making timely payment of rent and defaulted in making payment of rent. He then submits that after expiry of last lease with effect from 31.07.2013 till 13.05.2016 when the petitioner claims to have written letter dated 13.05.2016, a period of three years had already elapsed during which the petitioner neither bothered to pay the timely rent to the respondent No.5 nor made any sincere efforts to vacate the premises, as such the respondent No.5 was compelled to move before the Rent Comptroller which was allowed and subsequently appellate authority has allowed the appeal of the petitioner in favour of the petitioner, however, that order was not in accordance with law and it was against Section 19 of the Act. He then submits that the appellate authority has directed that certain amount has already been paid by the petitioner and the petitioner will go on paying the rent and on this condition, he has allowed the petitioner to remain in possession. He further submits that the revisional authority has rightly passed the order and emphasis is made by the revisional authority under Section 19(1)(d) as well as under Section 19(1)(a) of the Act and in view of that there is no illegality in the order of the revisional authority. He relied in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh and Ors. Versus Anand Kumar Sharma and Ors. Reported in (2003) 3 SCC 433 of paragraph No.4 which are quoted as under:- 4. He relied in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh and Ors. Versus Anand Kumar Sharma and Ors. Reported in (2003) 3 SCC 433 of paragraph No.4 which are quoted as under:- 4. The provisions of the said Act would clearly show that unlike rent control statutes of other States, the expression ‘willful default’ or ‘habitual default’ has not been used therein. The words are “is in arrears”. In the event rent for two months is not paid, a cause of action arises. The statute mandates that the rent should be paid within the time fixed by the contract and in absence thereof by the last date of the month next following. The obligation on the part of the tenant to pay rent in the manner laid down under the Act, being a statutory one, he must comply therewith strictly. The statute, therefore, in other words, prescribes the period within which the rent must be rendered to the landlord by a tenant. When the statute lays down the period during which the rent is required to be paid or deposited, the same is required to be complied with. He further relied in the judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sita Ram Sao versus M. Wazahat Hussain reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Jhar 2308. 5. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that the case of the respondent No.5 is fully covered and in view of that there is no illegality in the order of Revisional Authority, as such this Court may not interfere in the order of Revisional Authority. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the Revisional Authority has rightly passed the order and there is no illegality. He submits that emphasis in the said order is made on Sections 19(1)(d) as well as 19(1)(a), as such there is no illegality and this writ petition may kindly be dismissed. 7. In view of the above submission of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record including the judgment of First Court, Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Court. The First Court, who has exercised the original power under Section 19 of the said Act, has clearly held that the petitioner has defaulted in paying the amount and directed to pay the arrears and vacate the premises in question. The First Court, who has exercised the original power under Section 19 of the said Act, has clearly held that the petitioner has defaulted in paying the amount and directed to pay the arrears and vacate the premises in question. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi which was allowed in favour of the petitioner by order dated 22.01.2019 as such the respondent No.5 has moved before the revisional authority and the revisional authority has set aside the order of appellate court. 8. Looking into the contents and the finding of the Revisional Authority in J.B.C. Revision Case No.30 of 2022, the Court finds that the learned Court has held by way of making emphasis that there is violation of condition of Section 19(1)(a) as well meaning thereby, he has also held the finding of the original court under Section 19(1)(d) and has further emphasized that the condition of Section 19(1)(a) is also violated, thus the finding of the Original Court has been affirmed by the Revisional Court. Section 19(1)(a) and Section 19(1)(d) of the Act of Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 reads as under:- 19. EVICTION OF TENANT. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or law to the contrary, but subject to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act XIV of 1947), and to those of section 18, where a tenant is in possession of any building, he shall not be liable to eviction therefrom except in execution of an order passed by the Controller on one or more of the following grounds: (a) For breach of the conditions of the tenancy, or for sub-letting the building or any portion thereof without the consent of the landlord, or if he is an employee of the landlord occupying the building as an employee, on his ceasing to be in such employment; (b) Where the condition of the building has materially deteriorated owing to acts of waste by, or negligence or default of the tenant or of any person residing with the tenant or for whose behaviour the tenant is responsible; (c) Where the building is reasonably and in good faith required by the landlord for his own occupation or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the building is held by the landlord. Provided that where the Controller thinks that the reasonable requirement of such occupation may be substantially satisfied by evicting the tenant from a part only of the building and allowing that tenant to continue occupation of the rest and the tenant agrees to such occupation, the Controller shall pass an order accordingly; and fix proportionately the standard rent for the portion in occupation of the tenant, which portion shall henceforth constitute the building within the meaning of clause (b) of section 2 and the rent so fixed shall be deemed to be the standard rent fixed under section 12. Explanation I. - In this clause, the word "landlord" shall not include an agent referred to in clause (h) of section 2. Explanation II. - Where there are two or more buildings let out by the landlord it will be for the landlord to choose which one would be preferable to him and the tenant or tenants shall not be allowed to question such preference. (d) Where the amount of two months rent, lawfully payable by the tenant and due from him is in arrears by not having been paid within the time fixed by contract or in the absence of such contract, by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable or by not having been validly remitted or deposited in accordance with section 27; (e) In case of a tenant holding on a lease for a specified period, on expiry of the period of tenancy; and (f) The landlord requires the premises in order to carry out any building work at the instance of the Government or the Municipality or the Municipal Corporation or the Regional Development Authority or any other Authority within whose jurisdiction the building lies and such building work cannot be properly and fully carried out without the premises being vacated. 9. From reading of Section 19(1)(a) of the Act, it is crystal clear that for breach of condition of tenancy, it can be a ground for eviction and Section 19(1)(d) speaks of where the amount of two months rent lawfully not paid that can be a ground for eviction. 10. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has not paid the arrears of the amount and that is the finding of original Court as well as the Appellate Court and the Revisional Court. 10. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has not paid the arrears of the amount and that is the finding of original Court as well as the Appellate Court and the Revisional Court. Thus, there are concurrent findings on that point of the arrears by the three Courts even by the Appellate Court which has allowed the case in favour of the petitioner. The Revisional Court has further emphasized by way of holding the finding of Section 19(1)(d) correct that there is also violation of Section 19(1)(a), as such the argument advanced by Mr. Indrajit Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner with regard to the finding of the Revisional Court that on a new ground he has directed to upheld the order of original Court is not tenable. 11. Recently in E. Palanisamy versus Palanisamy reported in (2003) 3 SCC 127 in paragraph No.5, it has been held as under by Hon’ble the Supreme Court:- 5. The rent legislation is normally intended for the benefit of the tenants. At the same time, it is well settled that the benefits conferred on the tenants through the relevant statutes can be enjoyed only on the basis of strict compliance with the statutory provisions. Equitable consideration has no place in such matters. 12. In view of the above, it is well settled that Rent Control Act is not only a beneficial enactment for the tenant but also for the benefit of the landlord. The reference may be made to the case of Shri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Syeda Vajhiunnissa Begum reported in 1994 2 SCC 678. 13. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the Court finds that there is no illegality in the order of the Revisional Court as such this petition is dismissed. 14. Pending petition, if any, is also disposed of.