2026:JHHC:10639 Page No. 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6500 of 2024 ----- Md. Safdar Ali, aged about 50 years, Son of Late Abdul Aziz Ansari, Resident of M/S Comtel Plaza & Millennium Infosys, at College Road, Sahibganj, P.O. Sahibganj,P.S. Sahibganj (T), District Sahibganj, Jharkhand ....Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand; 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, P.O. & P.S. Sahibganj, Dist. Sahibganj. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sahibganj, P.O. &Sahibganj, P.S.-Sahibganj. 4. i. Sandhya Devi, W/o Late Shankar Prasad ii. Deepa Kumari, D/o Late Shankar Prasad iii. Pratima Kumari, D/o Late Shankar Prasad iv. Tarun Kumar, S/o Late Shankar Prasad v. Manish Kumar, S/o Late Shankar Prasad, All R/o- Cabin Gali, College Road, P.O, P.S & District- Sahibganj … Respondent(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Radha Kishan Gupta, Advocate : Ms. Nirupama, Advocate …...... 05/15.04.2026: By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- i. For quashing of order dated 30.08.2024. passed by respondent no. 2 in Title Eviction Appeal Case No. 02/2024-2025 whereby and whereunder the respondent no. 2 affirmed the order dated 28.02.2024. passed by respondent no. 3 in Title Eviction Case No. 06/2022 and respondent no. 2 also directed the petitioner to vacate the tenant premises within one month in view of the Section 19 (C) of Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent Eviction) Control Act. ii. For quashing of order dated 28.02.2024 passed by respondent no. 3 in Title Eviction Case No. 06/2022 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has directed been to vacate the tenanted premises within one month. iii. For direction upon the respondents stay the operations of order dated 30.08.2024 and 28.02.2024 during the pendency of instant writ petition. 2. The petitioner is a tenant who has been running a shop in the rented premises since 04.07.2009 at a monthly rent of Rs.1350 under an unregistered agreement, which expired on 31.07.2020. However, due to unavoidable circumstances and because the shop is his sole source of livelihood, he could not vacate and requested more time from the landlord. The landlord instead filed an 2026:JHHC:10639 Page No. 2. eviction suit being Eviction suit no. 6/2022 and the court ordered the petitioner to vacate within one month on 28.02.2024, which was later upheld in appeal being Title Eviction Appeal no. 2/24-25 on 30.08.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court orders are arbitrary and illegal and proper legal procedures were not followed. He further submits that no adequate opportunity or fair hearing was given. He also submits that evidence and witnesses were not properly considered and the eviction was wrongly based on an unregistered rent agreement despite legal requirements for registration of long-term leases. He further submits that court fee provisions were not properly complied with and that the actions violated provisions of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011 and the Registration Act, 1908. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the tenancy agreement, which was for 11 years on a monthly rent basis, expired on 31.07.2020. Despite this, the petitioner has not vacated the premises, which is considered improper and against the basic understanding and trust between landlord and tenant. He further submits that the petitioner has violated the terms of the tenancy agreement by not vacating the premises after expiry of the same. He also submits that the landlord had made several genuine attempts to get the premises vacated peacefully, but when the petitioner ignored, eviction proceeding was initiated. 5. After hearing both the parties andupon perusal of the records, I find that it is clear that the petitioner is a tenant and the agreement was for 11 years, which ended on 31.07.2020. The fact that the tenancy was only for 11 years has been admitted by the petitioner/tenant. Thus inspite of the fact that the agreement is unregistered, this admitted fact can be taken note of. 6. Even after the expiry of the agreement, the petitioner did not vacate the premises, which is against the terms of the tenancy. Although the petitioner claims that the shop is his only source of livelihood, this cannot take away the legal right of the landlord to get back possession of the property. The landlord tried to get the premises vacated peacefully, but when the petitioner did not cooperate, legal action was taken. Further order sheet dated 28.2.2024 of Title Eviction Suit No. 6/2022 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sahibganj, suggests that the tenant had under taken to vacate the premises, so one month time was granted. Further 2026:JHHC:10639 Page No. 3. there is no procedural illegality and irregularity committed by the trial court or the appellate court. 7. In view of the facts of the case, I am of the view that the landlord has acted within the framework of law. In the present case, the tenancy admittedly expired on 31.07.2020, and despite such expiry, the petitioner continued in possession of the premises without any legal right. Once the tenancy has expired or been terminated, the tenant has no right to continue in possession except as provided under statute. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending Interlocutory Application being I.A. no. 13212 of 2024 is also dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 15th April, 2026 Anu/-Cp2. Uploaded on: 18.04.2026.