1 ( 2025:JHHC:12171-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 568 of 2024 Rajendra Prasad, aged about 76 years, son of Late Bhagwan Lal, resident of Plot No. C-4, Centre Market, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro Steel City, District- Bokaro. ….. Appellant Versus 1. Raj Kumar Gambhir, aged about 68 years, son of late Tirath Ram, resident of Thana Road, P.O. & P.S.- Sariya, District- Giridih. 2. The State of Jharkhand through the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh. P.O. & P.S.- Hazaribagh, District- Hazaribagh. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih. P.O. & P.S.- Giridih, District- Giridih. 4. Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-House Rent Controller, Bagodar-Sariya, P.O. & P.S.- Bagodar, District- Giridih. ....... Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --- For the Appellant : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Ms. Malsi, Advocate For the Resp. No. 1 : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate For the Resp. Nos. 2 to 3 : Mr. Anish Mishra, AC to Sr.S.C-I Mr. Aditya Kumar, AC to Sr. SC-I --- 5/ Dated: 24.04.2025 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 21.08.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 3343 of 2024. 2. The said writ petition had been filed by the 1st respondent challenging an order dated 08.05.2024 in H.R.C Revision Case No. 37 of 2022 passed by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, whereby the Revision preferred against the order dated 08.02.2022 passed in H.R.C Appeal No. 2 of 2021 by Deputy Commissioner, Giridih was allowed, the order passed by the Appellate Authority has been set aside, and the order dt 31.03.2021 passed in Case No. 21 of 2021 of the House Rent Controller has been upheld. 3. The said proceeding arose under the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent, and Eviction) Control Act, 2011. 4. The appellant had filed an application for eviction of 1st respondent under the said statute before 4th respondent and the 4th respondent had directed ex-parte eviction of the 1st respondent by order dt 31.03.2021. 2 5. The 1st respondent challenged the same before the 3rd respondent by Appeal No. 2 of 2021. The 3rd respondent (Deputy Commissioner, Giridih) allowed the appeal on 08.02.2022. 6. Challenging the same, the appellant approached the Revisional Authority under Section 37 of the said Act. The Revisional Authority allowed the said Revision by order dt 08.05.2024 after giving the finding that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellant and the 1st respondent, but without mentioning the ground on which eviction is being directed. 7. The 1st respondent then filed the writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 3343 of 2024 in this Court. 8. The learned Single Judge set aside the order of the Revisional Authority as well as the Appellate Authority and remanded the matter back to the primary authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer. 9. We fail to understand why the learned Single Judge had to remit the matter back to the Sub-Divisional Officer, when there is no restriction under Section 37 of the said Act imposed on the Commissioner while hearing the Revision to decide the matter afresh, on facts or law or otherwise if there is any defect in the order of the Deputy Commissioner. 10. Therefore, to the extent the learned Single Judge had remitted the matter back to the Sub-Divisional Officer cum House Rent Controller (4th respondent), we deem it appropriate to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and to that extent, the said order is set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the 2nd respondent to consider after giving opportunity to both parties and by looking into oral and documentary evidence in accordance with the law. 11. The appeal is allowed to the above extent only. (M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) R.Kr./Vedanti