2026:JHHC:11938 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2607 of 2026 ----- Raj Kumar Gambhir, aged about 70 years, son of Late Tirath Ram, resident of Thana Road, P.O. & P.S.- Sariya, District- Giridih. ....Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribagh, District - Hazaribagh. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, P.O. & P.S. Giridih, District - Giridih. 3. Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-House Rent Controller, Bagodar- Sariya, P.O. & P.S. Bagodar, District Giridih, Jharkhand. 4. Rajendra Prasad, 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. … Respondent(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Ms. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Advocate Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate …...... 03/22.04.2026: I.A. No. 1763 of 2026 filed for acceptance of vakalatnama of respondent no. 4 is allowed. 2. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- i. For issuance of appropriate Writ(s)/ Order(s) / Direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 18.12.2025 passed in H.R.C. Revision Case No. 42/2025 (Annexure-13) by the respondent Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, whereby the said revisional authority upon remand of the matter by this Hon’ble Court has been pleased to allow the revision preferred against the order dated 8.2.2022 (Annexure-7) passed in H.R.C. Appeal No. 02/2021 and uphold the order dated 31.3.2021 passed in Case No. 21/2021 (Annexure-5) by the respondent House Rent Controller, subject to the outcome of the pending Original Suit No. 112/2021 between the parties. 2026:JHHC:11938 2 ii. The petitioner further prays for issuance of appropriate Writ(s) /Order(s) /Direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 31.3.2021 (Annexure-5) passed in Case No. 21/2021 by the respondent House Rent Controller, whereby and whereunder upon remand by the Appellate Authority, the learned House Rent Controller has re-affirmed the order dated 6.12.2018 (Annexure-3) and has directed the petitioner/tenant to evict the house situated at Khata No. 155, Plot No. 4261 at Sariya Bazar (Vivekanand Marg). iii. The petitioner further prays for issuance of appropriate Writ(s) /Order(s) /Direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 6.12.2018 passed in Misc. Case No. 105/2018 (Annexure-3) by the respondent House Rent Controller, whereby and whereunder in an ex-parte proceeding, the order for eviction has been passed. iv. The petitioner further prays for a direction upon the respondents to not to disturb the petitioner as a tenant who is in occupation of the premises since 1986 and no grounds for eviction of the petitioner in terms of the requirements under Jharkhand Building, (Lease, Rent & Eviction Control) Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to JBC Act) is being made out. 3. The fact of the case is that the petitioner has been the tenant of the premises since 1986 under the original landlords, Ram Prasad Mandal and Narayan Mandal, and has been regularly paying rent while running his business. Although the landlords’ names are recorded in revenue records, a third party, Rajendra Prasad, claimed title and filed an eviction case on 10.07.2018, leading to an ex parte eviction order dated 06.12.2018 without proper notice. This was challenged in an appeal being Eviction Appeal no. 3/2020 in which the Appellate Authority i.e Deputy Commissioner remanded the matter to the House Rent Controller, but the House Rent Controller again upheld eviction vide order dated 31.03.2021. This order was challenged before the Appellate Authority in H.R.C. Appeal No. 02/2021. Meanwhile, the real landlords filed Title Suit No. 112/2021 in the year 2021 in which the court recognized the petitioner’s tenancy. 4. The Appellate Authority in H.R.C. Appeal No. 02/2021 after considering the facts of this case has set aside the eviction on 2026:JHHC:11938 3 08.02.2022, but the Revisional Authority restored it on 08.05.2024. The petitioner then approached the High Court by filing Writ petition being W.P.C no. 3343 of 2024, which set aside the orders on 21.08.2024 and remanded the matter to the House Rent Controller, which was challenged in L.P.A no. 568 of 2024. The Division Bench of this Court only remanded the matter to the Revisional Authority, however, the Revisional Authority again upheld the eviction by order dated 18.12.2025 which is now under challenge. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the private respondent, Rajendra Prasad, is not the landlord and has no ownership over the property, yet he wrongly initiated eviction proceedings on 10.07.2018. He further submits that the ex parte eviction order dated 06.12.2018 was passed without proper notice. He also submits that even after remand, the House Rent Controller again upheld eviction on 31.03.2021 without proper reasoning. The authorities failed to consider that Title Suit No. 112/2021 is pending, where the real landlords have claimed ownership and wherein the court recognized the petitioner’s tenancy. He further submits that later the Revisional Authority again allowed eviction on 08.05.2024 and 18.12.2025 without properly checking about the real landlord or whether there is any valid reason for eviction or not. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the private respondent claims right, title, and interest over the disputed property and therefore has the right to seek eviction of the petitioner. He further submits that the eviction application dated 10.07.2018 was filed before the competent authority, and the order dated 06.12.2018 was passed in accordance with law. He also submits that the revisional authority, after considering the records, rightly upheld the eviction orders on 08.05.2024 and 18.12.2025. Even if a title suit is pending, eviction can still be effected. Therefore, the orders passed by the authorities are legal and valid. 2026:JHHC:11938 4 7. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I find that the dispute between the parties primarily relates to right, title and interest over the property in question, which is already the subject matter of Original Suit No. 112/2021 pending before the Civil Court. The petitioner claims tenancy under the recorded landlords, whereas the private respondent also asserts ownership over the same property. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts of the case, I am of the view that the authorities have passed orders after considering the records, and no clear legal error has been shown that requires interference under writ jurisdiction. 9. It appears that the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken a stand that a person, who is not the landlord and has no ownership over the property, cannot initiate an eviction proceeding. The term “Landlord” has been defined in Section 2(g) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011, which reads as under: Section 2(g):- “Landlord” means the owner of the building and includes a person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of the building, whether on his own account or on behalf of another, or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver, guardian or whoever so receives the rent, or entitled to receive the rent, if the building were let to a tenant. 10. As per the said definition, the land owner and owner of property need not always be the landlord. He can be anyone who receives or entitled to receive rent from the tenant. Thus, the contention of the petitioner regarding ownership of the property cannot be acceptable in law. 11. The petitioner has also already been given opportunity to be heard in appeal, revision, and in the earlier writ proceedings. The House Rent Controller as well as the Revisional Authority have passed the impugned orders after examining the material available on record. This demonstrates that the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity of hearing and due process was followed. The authorities 2026:JHHC:11938 5 have acted within the scope of their jurisdiction. No jurisdictional error or perversity has been found that would justify interference in writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court is not willing to interfere with the impugned orders. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 22.04.2026 Tanuj/CP-2 Uploaded on 15.05.2026