RAJESH SHANKAR,J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 21.02.2017 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in JBC Revision No. 108 of 2016 whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the petitioner has been directed to pay the arrears of rent as well as the monthly rent determined by the Rent Controller-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi to the respondent No. 1. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 03.10.2016 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in JBC Appeal No. 39 R 15 of 2015-16 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 14.10.2015 passed by the Rent Controller-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi in JBC Case No. 75 of 2015 was dismissed. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 14.10.2015 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) passed by the Rent Controller-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi in JBC Case No. 75 of 2015 whereby the petition of the respondent No. 1 under Section 12 of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2011') was allowed and a standard rent for the land in question aggregating to 43200 sq. ft. was fixed @ Rs. 9 per sq. ft. and accordingly the total standard rent on the land in question was fixed at Rs. 3,88,800/- per month payable by the petitioner.
(2.) The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the petitioner's mother, namely, Mrs. Saraswati Agarwal had purchased the land admeasuring 1 Bigha 16 Kathas 5 Chataks 15 sq. ft. situated in Municipal Holding No. 1829 and a part and parcel of M.S Plot No. 2366 in Ward No. VII of the Ranchi Municipal Town, Ranchi, Mohalla-Konka, Purulia Road, Lalpur, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as 'the purchased land') from one Mr. Satyanarayan Modi (father of the respondent No. 1) by virtue of registered sale-deed dated 01.05.1973. Thereafter, the petitioner's family came in possession of the purchased land as well as the remaining land of M.S Plot No. 2366 about 54 Kathas (hereinafter referred to as 'the remaining land') and constructed boundary wall over the entire land in the end of the year 1973. The respondent No. 1 filed an application being JBC Case No. 75 of 2015 against the petitioner before the Rent Controller-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi under Section 12 of the Act, 2011 for fixation/determination of standard and fair rent for the remaining land alleging that the petitioner is his tenant upon the remaining land. The petitioner appeared in the said case and objected the claim of the respondent No. 1 on the ground that there is no relationship of tenant and landlord between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1. However, the application of the respondent No. 1 was allowed on 14.10.2015 by the Rent Controller-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi fixing the rent of the remaining land as Rs. 3,88,800/- per month and also directing the petitioner to pay the arrear of rent since the date of filing of the JBC Case No. 75 of 2015. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred appeal vide JBC Appeal No. 39 R 15/2015-16 before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, however, the same was also dismissed vide order dated 03.10.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred revision vide JBC Revision No. 108 of 2016 before the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 21.02.2017 directing the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent as well as monthly rent determined by the Rent Controller.
(3.) The learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no relationship of tenant and landlord between the respondent No. 1 and the petitioner's family. There is a dispute with regard to possession over the land in question between the parties. The Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to decide such dispute, which can only be adjudicated before the competent Civil Court. It is further submitted that earlier also, the respondent No. 1 and his family members had tried to disturb the possession of the petitioner and his family members, however, all those attempts failed and finding no way, the respondent No. 1 concocted a story of tenancy and is trying to grab the land of the petitioner on which the petitioner and his family members are in peaceful possession for more than 50 years. On 15.01.2002, U.C Case No. 96 of 2001 was also filed by the respondent No. 1 against the petitioner and his family members alleging illegal construction on the part of M.S Plot No. 2366 situated in Holding No. 1829 within Ward VII of Ranchi Municipality at Purulia Road, Konka, Lalpur, Ranchi, however, the said complaint was dismissed by the Vice Chairman, Ranchi Regional Development Authority (in short RRDA) vide order dated 31.08.2004 on the ground that the petitioner has not made any new and unauthorized construction over M.S Plot No. 2366. The order of the Vice Chairman, RRDA was also confirmed in appeal by the learned Appellate Tribunal, RRDA, Ranchi in Appeal No. 08/2004. In the said U.C case, the respondent No. 1 had not alleged about any tenancy relationship between the parties either before the Vice Chairman, RRDA or before the Appellate Tribunal, which goes to show that subsequently, the respondent No. 1 manufactured his case only to grab the land of the petitioner. The learned Courts below have heavily relied upon the assessment of Plot No. 1829 made by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation (in short RMC) in the year 1960-61 wherein Surajmal Modi has been shown as a tenant of the said plot, however, when the petitioner sought the certified copy of the said document from the office of the RMC, he was informed vide order dated 09.05.2017 that the assessment record of Holding No. 1829 of Ward No. VII for the year 1960-61 was torn and thus it was not possible to provide the certified copy, which raises a serious doubt on the existence of the said document. Though the respondent No. 1 contended that in the rent fixation case the petitioner and his family members were the tenant on the remaining land and they were paying the rent regularly, however, the respondent No. 1 did not bring any lease agreement or rent receipt either before the Courts below or before this Court in support of the said contention. The order of the Rent Controller is based on incorrect and erroneous finding that the sale-deed dated 01.05.1973 executed between Mr. Satyanarayan Modi and Mrs. Sarasawati Agarwal provides that after execution of the sale-deed, the petitioner's family will remain in possession of the remaining land as a tenant. The sale-deed only provides that prior to execution of the sale-deed, the petitioner's family was a tenant of the land which the petitioner's mother had purchased by virtue of the said sale-deed. Once the sale-deed was executed, even the said tenancy was over. It is further submitted that the definition of the 'landlord' has been provided in Section 2(g) of the Act, 2011 which recognizes a person to be a landlord with respect to a building and not with respect to a land and as such the respondent No. 1 is not a landlord within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Act, 2011. Thus, JBC Case No. 75 of 2015 was itself not maintainable.;