JUDGMENT : RAJESH SHANKAR, J. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.01.2025 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 2 – the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh-cum-the Revisional Authority under the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 in Eviction Revision Case No. 51 of 2023 in terms of which the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 12.05.2023 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 3 – the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma in Eviction Appeal No. 160 of 2022 has been dismissed. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 12.05.2023 passed by the respondent no. 3 in Eviction Appeal No. 160 of 2022, whereby the eviction appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed, affirming the order dated 07.10.2022 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 4 – the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-House Controller, Koderma in JBC Case No. 04 of 2021. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 07.10.2022 passed by the respondent no. 4 in JBC Case No. 04 of 2021, whereby the petition filed by the respondent no. 5 seeking eviction of the petitioner was allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the father of the respondent no. 5 entered into a rent agreement with effect from January, 2012 on the basis of which the petitioner opened a cloth shop in the tenanted premises situated over Plot No. 7534, Khata No. 390, Mouza-Tilaiya, Thana No. 244, Ward No. 15 under Jhumri Tilaiya Nagar Parishad, Holding No. 169, District-Koderma. After death of the father of the respondent no. 5, a fresh rent agreement was entered between the petitioner and the respondent no. 5 on 28.01.2017 for a period of five years from 01.01.2017 to 31.12.2021. 3. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 5 was in urgent need of money and, therefore, he entered into an agreement of sale dated 14.02.2016 with the petitioner with intention to sell the tenanted shop. Thereafter, the total consideration amount was fixed as Rs.21,00,000/- out of which an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- was paid to the respondent no. 5 and remaining amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was agreed to be paid to him at the time of registration of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. It was further agreed that if the respondent no. Thereafter, the total consideration amount was fixed as Rs.21,00,000/- out of which an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- was paid to the respondent no. 5 and remaining amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was agreed to be paid to him at the time of registration of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. It was further agreed that if the respondent no. 5 failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, he would return the received amount to the petitioner with interest on prevailing bank rate within a period of four years (48 months). It was also agreed that if the respondent no. 5 failed to return the said amount, then the petitioner would be at liberty to use the said premises by adjusting the amount in the monthly rent. It was also stipulated in the said agreement that in the case of returning the received amount in a lumpsum by the respondent no. 5, the petitioner would vacate the shop as per the willingness of the respondent no. 5. 4. It is also submitted that the respondent no. 5 preferred an eviction suit against the petitioner being Eviction Case No. 4 of 2021 invoking the provisions of Section 11 (5) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2000. The petitioner filed a written statement in the said case claiming that the petitioner was inducted in the suit property on a monthly rent of Rs.3000/- since January, 2012, however, after death of father of the respondent no. 5 on 23.02.2014, an agreement for sale was entered between the petitioner and the respondent no. 5 on 14.02.2016 in terms of which an offer to sell the suit property was given to the petitioner by the said respondent on an agreed price of Rs.21,00,000/- out of which an amount of Rs.15,50,000/- was already paid before preparing the sale agreement. Thereafter, an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid by the petitioner to the said respondent. Thus, the respondent no. 5 received a total amount of Rs.18,00,000/- and only an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was due to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent no. 5. Despite that, the respondent no. 4 vide order dated 07.10.2022 allowed the said eviction case filed by the respondent no. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an eviction appeal before the respondent no. 5 received a total amount of Rs.18,00,000/- and only an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was due to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent no. 5. Despite that, the respondent no. 4 vide order dated 07.10.2022 allowed the said eviction case filed by the respondent no. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an eviction appeal before the respondent no. 3 being Eviction Appeal No. 160 of 2022, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 12.05.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision before the respondent no. 2 being Eviction Revision Case No. 51 of 2023, which was also dismissed vide order dated 15.01.2025. 5. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 5 subsequently filed Execution Case No. 02 of 2022 before the respondent no. 4 for execution of the order dated 07.10.2022 in which the said respondent passed the order dated 22.03.2025 directing the petitioner to vacate the tenanted shop within 10 days from the date of receiving the said order. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the observation of the respondent no. 4 made in the order dated 07.10.2022 is completely perverse as the agreement for sale dated 14.02.2016 executed between the petitioner and the respondent no. 5 was not at all considered by him. Moreover, the courts of the respondent nos. 2 to 4 did not consider the important aspect that the notarized rent agreement entered between the petitioner and the respondent no. 5 for five years i.e., from 01.01.2017 to 31.12.2021 cannot be said to be a rent agreement in the eyes of law as the same is in direct conflict with the provision of Section 17(d) of the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908 which provides that the leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent, are required to be compulsorily registered. 7. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 submits that admittedly, there was tenant-landlord relationship between the petitioner and the respondent no. 5. It is further submitted that before passing the order of eviction of the petitioner, the respondent no. 4 had come to a clear finding of fact in the order dated 07.10.2022 on the issue that the petitioner had made default in making payment of rent. The said finding was affirmed by the respondent nos. 5. It is further submitted that before passing the order of eviction of the petitioner, the respondent no. 4 had come to a clear finding of fact in the order dated 07.10.2022 on the issue that the petitioner had made default in making payment of rent. The said finding was affirmed by the respondent nos. 3 and 2 in their orders dated 12.05.2023 and 15.01.2025 respectively. As such, no interference with the said order is required under extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It is also submitted that the petitioner has failed to bring on record any documentary evidence before this Court to show that he had not made any default in making payment of monthly rent. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. The thrust of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that all the three courts of the respondent nos. 2 to 4 failed to take into consideration that in the agreement for sale entered between the petitioner and the respondent no. 5 to sell the tenanted shop, it was specifically stipulated that if the respondent no. 5 failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, then he would return the entire received amount to the petitioner with interest within a period of four years. Moreover, it was also agreed that if he failed to return the received amount, then the petitioner would utilize the said shop and adjust the paid amount in monthly rent of the said shop. The claim of the petitioner is that since the respondent no. 5 had failed to execute the sale deed with respect to the tenanted shop in favour of the petitioner, he was entitled to use the shop premises as per the terms of the agreement for sale and the respondent no. 5 had no right to claim eviction of the petitioner on the ground of default in making payment of rent since the amount paid by the petitioner as consideration was to be adjusted in the monthly rent of the shop in question. 10. To appreciate the contentions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned order dated 07.10.2022 passed by the respondent no. 4 from which it appears that in the said proceeding, the rent receipts from July, 2018 to September, 2019 (total 15 months) were submitted by both the parties. 10. To appreciate the contentions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned order dated 07.10.2022 passed by the respondent no. 4 from which it appears that in the said proceeding, the rent receipts from July, 2018 to September, 2019 (total 15 months) were submitted by both the parties. On perusal of the receipts, the respondent no. 4 came to a factual finding that as per Section 27 (1) of the Act, 2011, the petitioner had neither paid nor deposited lawfully payable monthly rent to the respondent no. 5 for 16 months (i.e., from October, 2019 to January, 2021) and monthly maintenance charge, in total amounting to Rs.1,93,600/-. As such, he had directed the petitioner to pay the said amount to the respondent no. 5 and vacate the tenanted shop within 30 days from the date of the said order. 11. So far as the claim of the petitioner that an agreement for sale was executed between him and the respondent no. 5 on 14.02.2016 for sale of the said shop premises and Rs.18,00,000/- was paid to the respondent no. 5 by him as part of the consideration amount is concerned, the respondent no. 4 observed in the order dated 07.10.2022 that the petitioner had failed to mention the monetary transfer in the two rent agreements dated 28.01.2017 and 15.07.2017, which were executed after entering into the alleged agreement for sale dated 14.02.2016, rather it had specifically been stated in the Condition No. 5 of those rent agreements that the respondent no. 5 had not taken any earnest money in relation to sale of the tenanted shop. Subsequently, the said factual finding of fact was affirmed both by the appellate as well as the revisional courts. 12. It is a well settled principle of law that the powers of a High Court under Articles 226 and 227 are very wide and extensive over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, however, such powers should be exercised within the limits of law. The High Court does not act as a court of appeal or a court of error. It is neither supposed to review/ reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a subordinate court or tribunal purports to be based. The High Court does not act as a court of appeal or a court of error. It is neither supposed to review/ reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a subordinate court or tribunal purports to be based. The High Court is also not supposed to correct errors of fact or law and to substitute its own decision for that of the subordinate court or the tribunal. The powers are required to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts and tribunals within the limits of law. Extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised for reappreciating the evidence and arrival of findings of facts unless the authority which has passed the impugned order does not have jurisdiction to render the finding or has acted in excess of its jurisdiction or the finding is patently perverse. 13. A perverse finding is one which is based on no evidence or one that no reasonable person would arrive at. Unless it is found that some relevant evidence has not been considered or that certain inadmissible material has been taken into consideration, the finding cannot be said to be perverse. In the present case, though the petitioner has claimed that the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 4 is perverse, he has failed to show any such infirmity in the said order. Before this Court also, the petitioner has failed to bring on record any document to controvert the factual finding recorded by the respondent no. 4 in the impugned order dated 07.10.2022 on bare perusal of which it appears that while passing the order of eviction of the petitioner, he has elaborately dealt with all the evidences laid by both the parties before him and as such, the said order cannot be said to be perverse as has been contended by the petitioner. 14. This Court is of the view that if there was any agreement for sale executed between the petitioner and the respondent no. 5 meant for sale of the tenanted shop, why the said fact was not mentioned in the rent agreements dated 28.01.2017 and 15.07.2017, which were executed subsequent to execution of the alleged agreement for sale dated 14.02.2016 and hence, creates reasonable doubt in the said claim of the petitioner. 15. 5 meant for sale of the tenanted shop, why the said fact was not mentioned in the rent agreements dated 28.01.2017 and 15.07.2017, which were executed subsequent to execution of the alleged agreement for sale dated 14.02.2016 and hence, creates reasonable doubt in the said claim of the petitioner. 15. Even if it is assumed that there was an agreement for sale executed between the petitioner and the respondent no. 5 for sale of the tenanted shop, the petitioner is at liberty to move before a competent civil court by filing a suit for specific performance. Nonetheless, on the pretext of the said agreement for sale, the petitioner cannot resist his eviction from the shop in question especially when he has not specifically denied the claim of the respondent no. 5 that he made default in making payment of the rent. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Joseph Kantharaj Vs. Attharunnisa Begum S. ” reported in (2010) 2 SCC 619 has held that courts dealing with summary proceedings against tenants under the Rent Acts for eviction should be cautious of the defendants coming forward with defences of agreement for sale. Unless the court is prima facie satisfied that the agreement is genuine and defence is bona fide, it should not defer the proceedings for eviction under the Rent Acts. 17. Apart from that, the tenure of the rent agreement was for five years and the said period has already elapsed and as such, the petitioner cannot claim continuance of his possession over the tenanted premises. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner puts reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case “ Rajesh Mitra alias Rajesh Kumar Mitra & Anr. Vs. Karnani Properties Ltd. ” reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2607 wherein it has been held that the enforcement of a new statute ipso facto will not take away the rights already accrued under the repealed statute unless this intention is reflected in the new statute. The ratio laid down in the said judgment is, however, not applicable in the facts and circumstance of the present case. 19. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. 20. Consequently, I.A. No. 4184 of 2025 also stands dismissed.