Jharkhand High Court
Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs Vishnu Chandra Modi on 7 March, 2018
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 3511 of 2017
Jitendra Kumar Agarwal ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. Vishnu Chandra Modi
2. Pramod Kumar Agarwal ..... Respondents
-----
CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner: Mr. Jai Prakash (A.A.G)
For the Respondents: Ms. Khusboo Kataruka
-----
06/07.03.2018 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated
21.02.2017 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in JBC Revision No. 108 of 2016 whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the petitioner has been directed to pay the arrears of rent as well as the monthly rent determined by the Rent Controller-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi to the respondent No.1. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 03.10.2016 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in JBC Appeal No. 39 R 15 of 2015-16 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 14.10.2015 passed by the Rent Controller-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi in JBC Case No. 75 of 2015 was dismissed. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 14.10.2015 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) passed by the Rent Controller-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi in JBC Case No. 75 of 2015 whereby the petition of the respondent No.1 under Section 12 of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2011') was allowed and a standard rent for the land in question aggregating to 43200 sq. ft. was fixed @ Rs.9 per sq. ft. and accordingly the total standard rent on the land in question was fixed at Rs.3,88,800/- per month payable by the petitioner.
2. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the petitioner's mother, namely, Mrs. Saraswati Agarwal had purchased the land admeasuring 1 Bigha 16 Kathas 5 Chataks 15 sq. ft. situated in Municipal 2 Holding No. 1829 and a part and parcel of M.S Plot No. 2366 in Ward No. VII of the Ranchi Municipal Town, Ranchi, Mohalla-Konka, Purulia Road, Lalpur, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as 'the purchased land') from one Mr. Satyanarayan Modi (father of the respondent No.1) by virtue of registered sale-deed dated 01.05.1973. Thereafter, the petitioner's family came in possession of the purchased land as well as the remaining land of M.S Plot No. 2366 about 54 Kathas (hereinafter referred to as 'the remaining land') and constructed boundary wall over the entire land in the end of the year 1973. The respondent No.1 filed an application being JBC Case No. 75 of 2015 against the petitioner before the Rent Controller-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi under Section 12 of the Act, 2011 for fixation/determination of standard and fair rent for the remaining land alleging that the petitioner is his tenant upon the remaining land. The petitioner appeared in the said case and objected the claim of the respondent No.1 on the ground that there is no relationship of tenant and landlord between the petitioner and the respondent No.1. However, the application of the respondent No.1 was allowed on 14.10.2015 by the Rent Controller-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi fixing the rent of the remaining land as Rs.3,88,800/- per month and also directing the petitioner to pay the arrear of rent since the date of filing of the JBC Case No. 75 of 2015. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred appeal vide JBC Appeal No. 39 R 15/2015-16 before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, however, the same was also dismissed vide order dated 03.10.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred revision vide JBC Revision No. 108 of 2016 before the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 21.02.2017 directing the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent as well as monthly rent determined by the Rent Controller.
3. The learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no relationship of tenant and landlord between the respondent No.1 and the petitioner's family. There is a dispute with regard to possession over the land in question between the parties. The Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to decide 3 such dispute, which can only be adjudicated before the competent Civil Court. It is further submitted that earlier also, the respondent No.1 and his family members had tried to disturb the possession of the petitioner and his family members, however, all those attempts failed and finding no way, the respondent No.1 concocted a story of tenancy and is trying to grab the land of the petitioner on which the petitioner and his family members are in peaceful possession for more than 50 years. On 15.01.2002, U.C Case No. 96 of 2001 was also filed by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner and his family members alleging illegal construction on the part of M.S Plot No. 2366 situated in Holding No. 1829 within Ward VII of Ranchi Municipality at Purulia Road, Konka, Lalpur, Ranchi, however, the said complaint was dismissed by the Vice Chairman, Ranchi Regional Development Authority (in short RRDA) vide order dated 31.08.2004 on the ground that the petitioner has not made any new and unauthorized construction over M.S Plot No. 2366. The order of the Vice Chairman, RRDA was also confirmed in appeal by the learned Appellate Tribunal, RRDA, Ranchi in Appeal No. 08/2004. In the said U.C case, the respondent No.1 had not alleged about any tenancy relationship between the parties either before the Vice Chairman, RRDA or before the Appellate Tribunal, which goes to show that subsequently, the respondent No.1 manufactured his case only to grab the land of the petitioner. The learned Courts below have heavily relied upon the assessment of Plot No. 1829 made by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation (in short RMC) in the year 1960-61 wherein Surajmal Modi has been shown as a tenant of the said plot, however, when the petitioner sought the certified copy of the said document from the office of the RMC, he was informed vide order dated 09.05.2017 that the assessment record of Holding No. 1829 of Ward No. VII for the year 1960-61 was torn and thus it was not possible to provide the certified copy, which raises a serious doubt on the existence of the said document. Though the respondent No.1 contended that in the rent fixation case the petitioner and his family members were the tenant on the remaining land and they were paying the rent regularly, however, the 4 respondent No.1 did not bring any lease agreement or rent receipt either before the Courts below or before this Court in support of the said contention. The order of the Rent Controller is based on incorrect and erroneous finding that the sale-deed dated 01.05.1973 executed between Mr. Satyanarayan Modi and Mrs. Sarasawati Agarwal provides that after execution of the sale-deed, the petitioner's family will remain in possession of the remaining land as a tenant. The sale-deed only provides that prior to execution of the sale-deed, the petitioner's family was a tenant of the land which the petitioner's mother had purchased by virtue of the said sale-deed. Once the sale-deed was executed, even the said tenancy was over. It is further submitted that the definition of the 'landlord' has been provided in Section 2(g) of the Act, 2011 which recognizes a person to be a landlord with respect to a building and not with respect to a land and as such the respondent No.1 is not a landlord within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Act, 2011. Thus, JBC Case No. 75 of 2015 was itself not maintainable.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 submits that the uncle of the respondent No.1, namely, Late Surajmal Modi was the owner of the purchased land as well as the remaining land and the same was leased out orally in favour of Late Ram Ballabh Agarwal along with the building and other constructions standing thereon in the year 1958 for a monthly rental of Rs.100/- in which Late Ram Ballabh Agarwal was running a business of timber work in the name and style of M/S Hindustan Timber Works. In the year 1960, a family partition was arrived at between the father of the respondent No.1 and Surajmal Modi and the said property came in the share of the family of the respondent No.1 and since then the respondent's father was paying the taxes of the said property. It is further submitted that in the year 1973, the purchased land was sold to the mother of the petitioner, however, the remaining land was given to the petitioner's family on rent and thereafter the rent was being paid by the petitioner's family at the rate agreed between them from time to time. In the revision filed before the Commissioner, South 5 Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, the petitioner has himself admitted the fact of tenancy and the only ground raised by him before the revisional authority was that it was a vacant land, however, the said ground was rejected by the Commissioner having gone through the reports prepared by the Circle Officer, Town, Ranchi and the Amin in Demarcation Case No. 115 of 2002-03. The proceeding before the RRDA was pertaining to the illegal construction and as such no averment was made in the said proceeding with regard to the tenancy. The respondent No.1 and his predecessors have been regularly paying the municipal and other revenue taxes for which they have been issued receipts as well. Despite several requests of the respondent No.1 to enhance the rent, the petitioner was paying merely Rs.3500/- per month for using the area of 60 Kathas of land and as such the respondent No.1 filed an application before the Rent Controller for enhancement of rent and fixation of standard rent whereupon the impugned order dated 14.10.2015 was passed which was also confirmed by the Appellate as well as the Revisional Court.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Rent Controller-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi whereby the petitioner's application has been allowed and the rent of the remaining land has been enhanced. The petitioner has also challenged the appellate order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi as well as the revisional order passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi whereby the order of the Rent Controller has been confirmed.
6. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which confers supervisory jurisdiction on the High Courts over sub-ordinate Courts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments described different situations under which the High Court may exercise the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. In the case of Mohan Amba Prasad Agnihotri Vs. Bhaskar Balwant Aheer reported in (2000) 3 SCC 190, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held 6 that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not appellate, but supervisory in nature and thus it cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below unless there is no evidence to support the findings or the findings are totally perverse.
8. In the case of Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen Workers' Union reported in (2000) 4 SCC 245, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is impermissible for the Writ Court to re- appreciate evidence liberally and to draw conclusions on pure questions of fact for the reason that it is not exercising appellate jurisdiction over the orders/awards passed by the Tribunal. The findings recorded by the Tribunal should ordinarily be considered to have become final and it should not be disturbed for the mere reason of having based on materials or evidences not sufficient or credible in the opinion of the Writ Court to warrant interference with those findings. As long as they are based upon some materials which are relevant for the purpose, no interference is called for.
9. In the case of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai & Ors. reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court can correct errors of jurisdiction committed by the subordinate Courts. It has also been held that when the subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or a jurisdiction though available, is being exercised in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned, the Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. However, it has also been held that be it a writ of certiorari or exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or law unless error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law; or, a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.
7
10. Further, in the case of Jasbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2006) 8 SCC 294, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"13. ..... while invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution, it is provided that the High Court would exercise such powers most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. The power of superintendence exercised over the subordinate courts and tribunals does not imply that the High Court can intervene in the judicial functions of the lower judiciary. The independence of the subordinate courts in the discharge of their judicial functions is of paramount importance, just as the independence of the superior courts in the discharge of their judicial functions. ....."
11. In the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the Tribunals and Courts subordinate to the High Court.
12. In the case of T.G.N. Kumar Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. reported in (2011) 2 SCC 772, the Hon'ble Spume Court has held that the power of superintendence conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is both administrative and judicial, but such power is to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority.
13. Further, in the case of Gulshera Khanam Vs. Aftab Ahmad reported in (2016) 9 SCC 414, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering a rent control matter, has held that there was no justification on the part of the High Court to have probed into any factual issues again in depth by undertaking appreciation of evidence like the first appellate Court and reversed the findings.
14. In the factual context of the present case, the finding of facts has been recorded by the Rent Controller on the basis of the sale-deed dated 01.05.1973 wherein the petitioner has been declared as the lessee of the remaining land. The Rent Controller has passed the order also on the basis of the assessment list of the RMC for the year 1960-61 wherein Late Ram Ballabh Agarwal has 8 been shown as a lessee. The learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner contends that although the property was previously leased out to the father of the petitioner, however, after execution of the sale-deed of the purchased land, the lease agreement automatically stood terminated. I do not find any merit in the said contention of the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner in view of the fact that the petitioner did not produce any document to controvert such statement of the respondent No.1 and also to prima-facie show his title over the remaining land subsequent to execution of the sale-deed of the purchased land. Though the respondent No.1 has not produced any rent receipt showing the lease of the land in question, the facts of the present case clearly reveal that even after the sale of the purchased land, the petitioner continued to enjoy the remaining land on the strength of the lease.
15. The petitioner claimed before the revisional authority that the remaining land does not come under the definition of the 'building' as provided under the Act, 2011. However, the said argument of the petitioner was not accepted by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi relying upon the report of the Circle Officer, Town Anchal Ranchi wherein labour-house and washroom have been shown in the part of the remaining land. The Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi has further observed that the municipal rent receipts show that the house tax and latrine tax are being realized from the petitioner.
16. Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner also contends that the report dated 15.06.2004 of the Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi cannot be made factual basis for treating the land as 'building' in view of the definition of the 'building' provided under Section 2(b) of the Act, 2011 as the said report was submitted in a proceeding initiated by the RRDA on the application made by the respondent No.1 alleging unauthorized construction over the purchased land of the petitioner. The said report of the Circle Officer cannot be taken into consideration in a rent control proceeding. The respondent No.1 has not been able to show any document in support of the fact that the petitioner is the 9 tenant of the respondent No.1 since 1958 on the remaining land. It is further contended that the report dated 15.06.2004 of the Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi could not have been relied upon by the Rent Controller as well as the appellate and revisional authorities under the Act, 2011 as the said report was submitted in a different proceeding before the RRDA for the alleged unauthorized construction made by the petitioner on his purchased land.
17. The said contention of the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable, as it is not material as to in what proceeding the said report was submitted by the Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi, rather what is relevant is that vide said report, a factual determination regarding the nature of the land/premises was made. The authenticity of the said report has not been disputed by the petitioner in any proceeding. Thus, the fact which emerged from the said report is that servant houses and washrooms are in existence on the remaining land which has been accepted by the petitioner.
18. Section 2(b) of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011 reads as under:
"Building" means any building or hut or a part of the building or hut, let or to be let, separately for residential or non-residential purposes and includes:-
i. the garden, grounds/open spaces and outhouses, if any, appurtenant to such building or hut or part of such building or hut, and ii. any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building or hut or part of such building or hut."
19. In view of the said definition, it cannot be said that the learned Courts below committed any error in treating the premises in question to be a 'building' and fixing the rent for being used by the petitioner.
20. Thus, in my considered view, the findings recorded by the learned Courts below do not suffer from any manifest error to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as, the petitioner has completely failed to demonstrate that the findings are so perverse or unreasonable that no Court could have ever reached such findings. The power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not in the nature of an appellate power enabling the High Court to re-appreciate evidence and to upset the 10 conclusion reached by the Courts below merely on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. No such infirmity could be pointed out by the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner so as to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse. Therefore, under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court conferred by the Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no interference with the finding of facts recorded by the Courts below is warranted as long as the findings of the Courts below are based on some materials which are relevant for the purpose.
21. In view of the discussions made herein above, I find no merit in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
22. Consequently I.A No. 736 of 2018 and I.A No. 7433 of 2017 also stand dismissed.
(RAJESH SHANKAR, J) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated 07.03.2018 Satish/A.F.R