2025:JHHC:19984 1 C.R. No. 02 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Revision No. 02 of 2023 -------- Abhishek Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Shankar Lal Gupta, aged about 35 years, R/o Shyam Mandir Road, P.O. & P.S., Sub-Division and District- Deoghar, Jharkhand-814112 ... ... Petitioner Versus Manisha Gupta, D/o Late Sunil Prasad Sah @ Sunil Sah, W/o Arun Kumar, aged about 48 years, R/o Mohalla Imlibari, S.B. Roy Road, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. and Sub-Division, District-Deoghar …Opp. Party ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate Ms. Shivani Jaluka, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate Mr. Suman Kr. Ghosh, Advocate -------- Order No. 17/ Dated:21st July, 2025 It is here to be mentioned that at the first instance, the petitioner has filed W.P. (C) No. 5642 of 2022 for issuance of appropriate orders/directions for quashing the order dated 13.10.2022 (impugned order) passed by Rent Controller-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Deoghar in Jharkhand Building Act Case No. 16 of 2021 whereby and whereunder the Rent Controller-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Deoghar was pleased to direct the petitioner/defendant to evict the shop of the opposite party/plaintiff under Section 19(1)(c) and (d) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011. 2. Later on, vide order dated 18.01.2023, the said writ petition was converted into Civil Revision and re-numbered as C.R. No. 02 of 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant assailing the impugned order has vehemently argued that the aforesaid eviction suit under Section 19(1)(c) and (d) of Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 was instituted by the plaintiff/opposite party on 18.12.2021 and after admission of the suit, notices were issued against the petitioner/defendant. The original defendant, father of the petitioner namely Shankar Lal Gupta (original defendant) appeared but before filing his written submission died due to heart-attack on 07th January, 2022. Thereafter, petitioner was substituted as defendant and his 2025:JHHC:19984 2 C.R. No. 02 of 2023 written statement was filed in the above suit on 25.04.2022. Thereafter, on three consecutive dates, there was no progress in the suit and case was fixed on 06.10.2022. On that day, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Court has settled following two issues:- (i) Whether the landlord tenant relationship exists or not? (ii) Whether the rent is being paid and whether it is agreeable? And next date was fixed on 13.10.2022 where it is wrongly mentioned dehors to the procedure established by law as under:- “Order attached after taking oral and documentary evidence” It is apparent from the order-sheet of the learned trial court that in between 06.10.2022 to 13.10.2022, no date was fixed for taking oral and documentary evidence of the respective parties rather arbitrarily and whimsically the learned trial Court ignoring the settled procedure as prescribed under Section 33 of Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 has passed the impugned order without taking oral and documentary evidence and without providing any sufficient opportunity to lead the evidence in flagrant violation of principle of natural justice,. Therefore, impugned order is absolutely illegal and cannot be justified under law which is fit to be set aside with all consequential order passed by the learned court below. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opp. party has contended that on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and their admissions and documents annexed along with the pleadings, a reasoned order has been passed by the learned Rent Controller-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Deoghar which is justified under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC. The main plea of the defendant/petitioner before the Rent Controller Officer was that his father got an agreement to sale the suit premises from the father of the plaintiff which does not confer any right, title and interest and “once a tenant is always a tenant” therefore, there is no merit in this revision, which is fit to be dismissed. 5. I have gone through the impugned order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of learned counsel for the respective parties. It appears that the specific case of plaintiff is that the suit premises was let out in 2025:JHHC:19984 3 C.R. No. 02 of 2023 favour of original defendant Shankar Lal Gupta on monthly rent of Rs. 1000/-. The rent was paid till the month of November, 2021 and it is due from December, 2021. The plaintiff Manisha Gupta wife of original landlord Arun Kumar reasonably and bona fidely requires the suit premises for her personal use and occupation as the defendant has also closed the shop and not using the same. From perusal of impugned order, it is crystal clear that no oral evidence has been adduced by any of the parties and documentary evidence was filed only by the plaintiff and no evidence was adduced by the defendant and on the very day of the settlement of the issues, the impugned order was passed directing the petitioner to vacate the suit premises within one month from the date of the order otherwise legal action may be taken against him. 6. In the aforesaid scenario, it is pertinent to extract the provisions of Section 33 of Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 as under: “33. Procedure to be followed by Controller (1) No order which prejudicially affects any person shall be made by the Controller under this Act without giving such person a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the order proposed to be made, and until his objection, if any, and any evidence that may be adduced in support of the same have been considered by the Controller. (2) The Controller shall, while holding enquiry in any proceeding before him follow such procedure as may be prescribed. (3) All proceedings before the Controller shall ordinarily conclude within six months from the date of first appearance of the respondent in response to the summons issued for his appearance in the case, or from the date on which the respondent is set ex-parte: Provided that the Controller may extend the hearing of the case beyond six months for reasons to be recorded by him on each day of hearing. However total period of such hearing shall not exceed 12 months. (4) In the. case of an application under sub-section (2) of section 18, the Controller shall commence the hearing of the application within seven days of the filing thereof and shall dispose off the same as far as may be possible within thirty days of start of such hearing, unless for reasons to be recorded the Controller adjourns the case beyond such time.” 2025:JHHC:19984 4 C.R. No. 02 of 2023 7. The aforesaid procedure to be adopted and followed by the controller are mandatory in nature which ordens that the parties must be given reasonable opportunity to lead their evidence as may be adduced in support of their case. Although it is mentioned in the impugned order that oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties have been considered while passing the order but the same is beyond the record. The learned Rent Controller-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Deoghar was duty bound to observe the minimum fair procedure of natural justice before passing the impugned order. 8. In view of the above discussion and reasons, I find merits in this revision. The impugned order is found to be passed in utter violation of procedural mandates as well as principle of natural justice without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to adduce his evidence. 9. Accordingly, impugned order dated 13.10.2022 passed by Rent Controller-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Deoghar is hereby set aside with all consequential orders of eviction passed in this case. Learned court below is directed to restore the Jharkhand Building Act Case No. 16 of 2021 to its original number and proceed to decide afresh in accordance with the law, after taking evidence of the parties as may be adduced and dispose of the case within two months from the date of receipt of this order. 10. Accordingly, in view of the above observation, this revision is allowed. 11. Pending I.As, if any, is also disposed of, accordingly. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court Dated 21/07/2025 Basant/N.A.F.R.