2025:JHHC:12513 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 273 of 2022 Ashok Kumar, son of Late Ramashankar Mishra, aged about 53 years, resident of Near Jorha Mandir, Rana Pratap Nagar, Chas, P.O. & P.S. Chas, District- Bokaro Steel City. ..…Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Om Prakash Prasad, son of Shri Shambhu Nath Prasad, resident of A.B. Road, Ram Nagar Colony, Chas, P.Ο. & P.S.- Chas, District Bokaro. 3. Deo Prakash Prasad, son of Shri Shambhu Nath Prasad, resident of A.B. Road, Ram Nagar Colony, Chas, P.O. & P.S.- Chas, District - Bokaro. 4. Suman Kumar, son of Shri Shambhu Nath Prasad, resident of A.B. Road, Ram Nagar Colony, Chas, P.O. & P.S.- Chas, District - Bokaro. 5. The Deputy Commissioner of Bokaro having its Office at Commissionerate Office, Camp II, P.O. & P.S. Sector -I, Bokaro Steel City. 6. Sanjay Bhalla, son of Late Om Prakash Bhalla, resident of house no. 248, new Kuldip cinema, Chas, PO & PS Chas, District - Bokaro. 7. Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Rent Controller, Chas, having his office at SDO Office, Chas, PO & PS - Chas, District - Bokaro. ....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate Mr. Nilesh Modi, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Sudhanshu Kr.Singh, A.C. to S.C-III For the Res. No.6 : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate --------- CAV On: 28/03/2025 Delivered on:23/4/2025 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the Petitioner assailing the Order dated 13.12.2021, passed by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribaghin JBC 2025:JHHC:12513 2 Revision Case No. 2/2021 (Annexure-13), whereby the Commissioner has dismissed the revision application preferred by the Petitioner and has confirmed the Order dated 04.01.2021 passed by the 5thRespondent in JBCA Appeal No. 45/2018-19 (Annexure-11); who confirmed the Order dated 31.01.2019 passed by the 7thRespondent in JBCA Case No. 32/2016 (Annexure-6). 3. The genesis of the dispute lies in the Order dated 31.01.2019 passed by the 7thRespondent-Rent Controller in JBCA Case No. 32/2016 whovide its order, has considered the Petitioner as tenant of Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 with respect to a shop, being Shop No. 06 on the ground floor of a building named ‘Natraj Mansion’ situated at By-pass Road, Chas, Bokaro Steel City (hereinafter to be referred as said Shop). Based on the said consideration, the Rent Controller, in the said order, had fixed the rent of the said Shop as Rs. 15,950/- per month with effect from 22.08.2016 and had further directed the Petitioner to pay the said rent to the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The said order of the Rent Controller was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner respectively. The Impugned Orders (Annexures – 6, 11 and 13) have been passed by the concerned authorities in the proceedings under the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control 2025:JHHC:12513 3 Act, 2011 (for short ‘JBC Act, 2011’) for the purpose of fixation of rent of the said Shop. 4. Mr. Rahul Lamba, learned counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the basic jurisdictional fact, to make a proceeding for rent fixation under the JBC Act, 2011 as maintainable, is that there has to be a landlord–tenant relationship between the parties. However, in the present case there was no landlord– tenant relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondents Nos. 2, 3 & 4. Accordingly, the jurisdictional fact was completely absent and the said proceedings for fixation of rent of the said Shop under the JBC Act, 2011 were not maintainable before the Rent Controller. Based on this, it has been arguedthat the Order, dated 31.01.2019 passed by the 7th Respondent in JBCA Case No. 32/2016, was without jurisdiction. 5. In order to support his argument that there was no landlord–tenant relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, he strongly relied on the admission of the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 made at paragraph 21 of their counter affidavit. The said respondents, at paragraph 21 of their counter affidavit, have admitted that the Petitioner is not a tenant of the said Shop. The said Respondents in this paragraph have also alleged that the Petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the said Shop. But 2025:JHHC:12513 4 the said contention, that the Petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of the said shop, has been disputed by the Petitioner. 6. It has been contended that the Petitioner claims the possession of the said Shop as a purchaser based on the Agreement of Sale dated 17.06.2016 executed by the 6th Respondent in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the Petitioner was no more a tenant of the said Shop after entering into the Agreement of Sale, dated 17.06.2016, with the Respondent No.6 and subsequent delivery of possession of the said Shop by the Respondent No.6 to the Petitioner. The Petitioner after the said event has been occupying the concerned Shop as the proposed purchaser and not as the tenant. 7. It has been further submitted that the 6th Respondent herein, being Defendant No.1 in Original Suit No. 29/2020 pending before the Ld. Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-IV, Bokaro instituted by this Petitioner for specific performance of the said agreement of sale, had filed his written statement dated 08.09.2022 in the said suit. The 6thRespondent in the said written statement has categorically admitted the execution of the said Agreement of Sale, dated 17.06.2016, whereby the he had agreed to sell the said Shop to the Petitioner. Further, it is also admitted that the 6th Respondent has received 2025:JHHC:12513 5 Rs.8,61,000/-, out of the total consideration of Rs. 9,11,000/-, from the Petitioner towards the agreement to sell the said Shop to the Petitioner. 8. Mr. Lamba contendedthat it is a well-established law that once an agreement of sale is made in favour of the tenant for selling the relevant property, thereafter, the tenant does not remain a tenant but becomes a proposed purchaser of such property. For the said submission, he has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of R. Kanthimathi v. Beatrice Xavier1. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the Petitioner that it is an admitted fact that the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have never received any rent from the Petitioner with respect to the said Shop. Further, it is also undisputed facts that even the Vendor of the said Respondents, Mrs. Meena Bhalla, with whom they have allegedly entered into the sale deed, was also not receiving the rent from the Petitioner with respect to the said Shop. It has been further argued that prior to the Agreement of Sale dated 17.06.2016 executed by the 6thRespondent in favour of the Petitioner for the said Shop, the rent of the said Shop was being paid by the Petitioner to the 6th Respondent. Accordingly, neither the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 1 (2000) 9 SCC 339 2025:JHHC:12513 6 nor their Vendor, Mrs. Meena Bhalla, were the landlord of the Petitioner with respect to the said Shop. 9. Learned counsel further submits that the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are claiming ownership of the said Shop on the basis of the sale deed, dated 22.08.2016, executed by Mrs. Meena Bhalla in favour of the said respondents. However, Mrs. Meena Bhalla herself had no exclusive right, title or interest in the said Shop or the property sold under the said sale deed. Therefore, Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 cannot acquire more than the right, title or interest of Mrs. Meena Bhalla in the said Shop or the property sold under the said sale deed. 10. Learned counsel further submits that the relevant property, including the said Shop, was owned by one Mr. Om Prakash Bhalla and Mr. Om Prakash Bhalla expired leaving behind his only son Mr. Sanjay Bhalla-Respondent No. 6 herein, his second wife Mrs. Meena Bhalla and three daughters Kavita Bhalla, Sunita Bhalla and Kanchan Bhalla. Further, it is an admitted fact that the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have allegedly purchased the relevant property only from Mrs. Meena Bhalla and not from any other legal heir of Late Om Prakash Bhalla. 11. It has been further argued that the Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 have contended that Mrs. Meena Bhalla became the exclusive owner of the concerned property based on a will of 2025:JHHC:12513 7 Mr. Om Prakash Bhalla and a NOC from the legal heirs of Late Om Prakash Bhalla. However, the Respondents have failed to bring on record any order of a competent court granting probate on the said will. Further, the said NOC, pursuant to which it has been claimed that the legal heirs of Late Om Prakash Bhalla have relinquished their rights in immovable property, is an unregistered instrument. 12. In support of this contention he relied on Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to submit that no will is valid in law, effective and provides right to any person to deal with the properties of the deceased unless an order of probate or letter of administration is issued by a competent court of law. He further relied on Section 17 (1) (b) of the Registration Act, 1908, to submit that a relinquishment deed, like the NOC being relied by the Respondents, is compulsorily required to be registered. 13. It has been argued by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the alleged sale deed executed by Mrs. Meena Bhalla in favour of the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 is bad in law and not valid. Therefore, the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are not the owners of the said Shop No. 06, which is under the possession of the Petitioner, and they cannot be regarded as the Landlord of the said property. Learned counsel further submits that the Petitioner has already challenged the said sale deed in its suit 2025:JHHC:12513 8 being O.S. No. 29/2020 pending before the Ld. Court of Civil Judge Senior Division – IV, Bokaro and the same is still pending. 14. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, without prejudice to its aforementioned submissions and in the alternative, submits that the standard rent of Rs. 55/- per sq. ft., totaling to Rs. 15,950/- per month, for the said Shop, has been fixed by the Rent Controller in the Impugned Order squarely based on the report dated 20.12.2017 of the Circle Officer. It has been pointed out that the said report of the Circle Officer is completely vague, mechanical and lacking particulars of rent in the locality where the said Shop is situated. The said report does not specify at all the description of the shop in the nearby location which ought to include the area of such shop, rent of such shop, name of the tenant of such shop, name of the landlord of such shop, the amenities given by the landlord in such shop, the condition of the building where such shop is situated etc. In the absence of any such specifics, the said report vaguely and mechanically states that the rent around the area of the said Shop is Rs. 55/- per sq. ft. It has been argued that such report is absolutely mechanical, baseless and also contrary to Section 12 (3) of the JBC Act, 2011. 2025:JHHC:12513 9 15. Learned counsel further submits that under the JBC Act, 2011, the standard rent can be fixed on the basis of the procedure given in Section 9 of the JBC Act, 2011. However, in the present case the Rent Controller has not followed the procedure for fixation of standard as provided in Section 9. The other provision under the JBC Act, 2011 to fix standard rent is Section 12 (3). It has been argued that in the present case Section 12 (3) has not been followed by the Rent Controller and the standard rent has been fixed in contravention of Section 12 (3) of JBC Act, 2011. There are no reasons provided by the Rent Controller in the Impugned Order as to why fixation of standard rent is not possible on the principles of Section 9. Further, the Rent Controller in the Impugned Order does not provide for the location, condition and amenities of the similarly situated other shops whose rent is taken for fixing the standard rent. Also, the Rent Controller has not taken the consent of the Petitioner before final fixation of the standard rent and the date of its applicability. According to the Petitioner, the manner of fixation of standard rent provided in Section 12 (3) has not been followed by the Rent Controller. 16. On the other side, the counsel for Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 submits that there is no illegality in the aforementioned orders passed by the Rent Controller, Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner. Learned counsel for the respondents has 2025:JHHC:12513 10 further argued and supported its statement made in paragraph 21 of their Counter Affidavit. As per the Respondents, the Petitioner has no right to be in occupation of the said Shop. According to the said Respondents the Petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the said Shop. Further, learned counsel has argued that the sale deed, which has been executed by Meena Bhalla in their favour of the concerned property of Late Om Prakash Bhalla, is valid and legal as there is a will in favour of Meena Bhalla and the NOC is also in favour of Meena Bhalla. The 6th Respondent has also filed its Counter Affidavit, wherein he has neither denied the Agreement of sale made in favour of this Petitioner with respect to the said Shop nor he denied receiving money from the Petitioner towards the purchase of the said Shop. 17. After hearing learned counsels for the rivalparties and looking into the averments made in the respective affidavits it appears thatthe very ownership of the said shop is in dispute, inasmuch as, the Petitioner had filed a Suit against the 6th Respondent being Original Suit No. 29/2020 pending before the learned Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-IV, Bokaro for specific performance of the agreement of sale, and the 6th Respondent had filed his written statement dated 08.09.2022 in the said suit. The 6th Respondent in the said written statement 2025:JHHC:12513 11 has categorically admitted the execution of the said Agreement of Sale, dated 17.06.2016, whereby he had agreed to sell the said Shop to the Petitioner. On the other hand, Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 have contended that Mrs. Meena Bhalla who is the vendor of the property sold in their favour, became the exclusive owner of the concerned property based on a will of Late Om Prakash Bhalla and a NOC from the legal heirs of Late Om Prakash Bhalla. However, the Respondents have failed to bring on record any order of a competent Court granting probate on the said will. Further, the said NOC, pursuant to which it has been claimed that the legal heirs of Late Om Prakash Bhalla have relinquished their rights in immovable property, is an unregistered instrument. Thus, as stated hereinabove, the very ownership of the said shop is in dispute and a Suit being Original Suit No. 29/2020 is pending before the Court of competent jurisdiction. 18. Further, from the counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 2 to 4; it is evident that the case of these Respondents is that the Petitioner is an unauthorized occupant of the said shop and the Petitioner does not have any tenancy agreement. 2025:JHHC:12513 12 When as per the said Respondents, the Petitioner is an unauthorized occupant of the said Shop, then the Petitioner cannot be a tenant since a tenant is a person who has been authorized by the landlord to be in possession of the property against the payment of rent. The said admission of the Respondents clearly proves that the Petitioner is not a tenant of the said Shop and that there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4. 19. The term ‘Tenant’ has been defined in Section 2 (l) of the JBC Act, 2011 to mean any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 has not produced any document showing payment of rent by the Petitioner to the said Respondents with respect to the said Shop. Also, they have not produced any tenancy agreement, pursuant to which rent was payable by the Petitioner to the Respondents No. 2 to 4, with respect to the said Shop. On the contrary, the fact admitted by the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4, at paragraph 21 of their Counter Affidavit is that the Petitioner does not have any tenancy agreement. In such facts and circumstances, the Petitioner cannot be regarded as the tenant of the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 with respect to the said Shop. 2025:JHHC:12513 13 20. As there is no landlord – tenant relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4, the said order passed by the Rent Controller, fixing the standard rent of the said Shop and directing the Petitioner to pay the said rent, is wholly without jurisdiction and not sustainable in the eye of law. 21. Consequently, the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner, confirming the order of the Rent Controller, are also not sustainable. Even they have not looked into this aspect of the matter and summarily rejected the appeal/revision of the Petitioner. 22. Additionally, the report, dated 20.12.2017, of the Circle Officer, based on which the Rent Controller has fixed the standard rent of the said Shop, is mechanical, vague and lacking material particulars. The said report does not provide the description of the shops, located nearby to the said Shop of the Petitioner, which ought to include the area of such shop, rent of such shop, name of the tenant of such shop, name of the landlord of such shop, the amenities given by the landlord in such shop, the condition of the building where such shop is situated and other relevant circumstances. No order, fixing standard rent of any property, should be passed on such vague and cryptic reports. 2025:JHHC:12513 14 23. Having regard to the above discussion the Order dated 31.01.2019 (Annexure-6) passed by 7th Respondent in JBCA Case No. 32/2016 whereby the petitioner was adjudged as tenant of the Shop in question,is hereby, quashed and set- aside. Consequently,Orderdated 04.01.2021 passed by 5th Respondent in JBCA Appeal No. 45/2018-19 (Annexure-11), whereby appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed and also Order dated 13.12.2021 passed by Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division in JBC Revision case No. 2/2021 (Annexure-13), whereby the Revision preferred by the Petitioner was dismissed; are hereby, quashed and set aside. 24. As a result, the instant application stands allowed. Pending IAs, if any, is also closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Amardeep/ AFR