Jharkhand High Court
M/S.Narbheram Leasing Co.(P)Lt vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 19 April, 2010
Equivalent citations: 2010 (3) AIR JHAR R 775, (2010) 4 JCR 266 (JHA)
Author: Amareshwar Sahay
Bench: Amareshwar Sahay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) NO. 2327 OF 2003
with
W.P.(C) NO. 2328 OF 2003
M/S. Narbheram Leasing Company Pvt. Limited ... ... Petitioner[In both Cases]
-versus-
State of Jharkhand and others ... ... Respondents[in both cases].
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESHWAR SAHAY.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate.
For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, J.C. to Sr. S.C.-II
8/19.04.2010. Heard the parties.
In view of the fact that the facts and points involved in both the writ petitions are same and similar and as such, both the cases have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common Order.
The facts in short are the petitioner of both the writ petitions, is the landlord and the private respondents i.e. Vijay Mehta and Dhiren Mehta, are his tenant with respect to two tenanted premises i.e. shop no. 2 and shop no. 3, situated in the commercial building namely - Narbheram Building, Sakchi Boulevard Road (Bistupur Main Road), Bistupur, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum.
The petitioner filed applications for fixing fair rent of the aforesaid two shops praying under Section 5 of the B.B.C. Act before the S.D.O. contending that the tenanted premises is located in the busy market area and business centre of Bistupur, Jamshedpur and the same is being used by the tenants for commercial purposes whereas, the rent paid by them was too low. As a matter of fact, the rent for such accommodation prevalent in that area is being paid @ about Rs.28/- per Sq. Ft.. Accordingly, prayer was made to fix the fair rent of the two shops premises @Rs.28/- per Sq. Ft. per month.
The S.D.M. - cum - House Rent Controller registered those two petitions filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of B.B.C. Act as H.R.C. Cases. The tenants were noticed and thereafter, he directed the Special Officer, Jugsalai Municipality, Jamshedpur to make a spot enquiry and report about the statements made by the petitioner. The Special Officer submitted his enquiry report dated 06.07.2002, contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition. He reported in his report that for similar accommodation, the prevailing rent in the area was @Rs.28/- per Sq. Ft.. However, it was also mentioned in the report that since in one case, namely H.R.C. Case No. 72 of 1998, the fare rent has been fixed at Rs.12 per Sq. Ft. and, therefore, he recommended that the fair rent of the premises can be fixed in between Rs.14 - 18 per Sq. Ft.. The S.D.M., on consideration of the report, submitted by the Special Officer of Jugsalai Municipality, Jamshedpur, by the impugned order dated 18.07.2002, contained in Annexure-3, fixed the fair rent of the premises in question of both the shops @Rs.15/- per Sq. Ft.
The respondents-tenants, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Controller, preferred appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, which were registered as H.R.C. Appeals. The Deputy Commissioner, by the impugned Order dated 22.10.2002, contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petitions, after hearing the parties, set aside the order passed by the S.D.M. And remanded the matter back to him by holding as follows:-
(i) M/s. Narbheram Leasing Company Pvt. Limited was allotted the premises by TISCO for running a motor garage and a sum of Rs.180/-
per month was being paid by way of rent to TISCO.
(ii) M/s. Narbheram Leasing Company Pvt. Limited, by violating the terms and conditions of the lease, are realising excess rent after constructing shop in the premises.
(iii) Fixing the fair rent of the premises in question by comparing the rent of Yes Kamal Complex, was not justified since Yes Kamal Complex was a newly constructed building and it was having all sorts of facilities. On the basis of the above findings, the Deputy Commissioner, directed the Sub Divisional Officer to consider and pass order in the case afresh. He also directed the Deputy Collector, Tata Lease to make enquiry and take action as to whether the petitioner was violating the terms of the lease with the TISCO.
The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner, preferred a revision before the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division. The Revisional Court, by the impugned Order dated 25.02.2003, as contained in Annexure-5, dismissed both the revision applications by affirming the Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner i.e. the appellate authority.
Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned Orders passed by the appellate authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, are beyond the purview, scope and jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner. He had no jurisdiction or authority to direct to take action against the petitioner for the alleged violation of the terms and conditions of the lease with TISCO. The Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction also to direct the Deputy Collector, Tata Lease to make enquiry if the terms of the lease was being violated by the petitioner. He further submitted that the orders of the Sub Divisional Officer, which were based on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Special Officer, Jugsalai Municipality, were perfectly legal and valid wherein, it was held that the rent of the commercial premises similarly situated were in between Rs.5 - 28 per Sq. Ft. but since in a similar case, the fair rent was fixed at Rs.12/- and, therefore, he fixed the fair rent at Rs.15/- per Sq. Ft.
On the other hand, Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that so far the first portion of the order of the Deputy Commissioner fixing rent @Rs.15/- per Sq. Ft. is concerned, the same is not at all justified since even according to the report of the Special Officer, the rent prevalent in the area was in between Rs.5 - 28 per Sq. Ft. and the Special Officer has wrongly compared the shops situated in the building namely Yash Kamal Complex which is a newly constructed complex with all amenities and, therefore, the rent of the shops situated in the Yash Kamal Complex were naturally higher since the building was a new one and all sorts of facilities was there and, therefore, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly remanded the matter back to the S.D.O. to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
So far the second part of the Order of the Deputy Commissioner is concerned, whereby the Deputy Commissioner directed to make enquiry and to take action against the petitioner for alleged violation of the terms of lease, Mr. Ananda Sen submitted that he cannot support that part of the order since it was beyond the scope of Section 5 of BBC Act and jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner.
In view of the submissions made by the parties, the only point which has to be considered in the present writ petitions are as to whether the fair rents fixed by the S.D.O. - cum - House Rent controller, on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Special Officer, was legal and valid and whether the appellate authority was justified in setting aside the orders of the House Rent Controller and remanding the matter back for fresh consideration.
From perusal of the Annexure-2, i.e. Enquiry Report submitted by the Special Officer, it appears that he made the spot enquiry by visiting the building where the shops in question are situated and also the Commercial Yash Kamal Building situated in the Bistupur area and on enquiry and local inspection made in presence of both the parties, he found that the rent of the shops situated in that area was ranging in between Rs.6 - 28 per Sq. Ft.
On considering of the facts mentioned in the report, the Special Officer recommended for fixation of rent in between Rs.14 - 18 per Sq. Ft.. From the order of the Deputy Commissioner, it appears that he found fixation of rent to be not justified because that Yash Kamal Complex was a newly constructed building whereas, the building in which the shops in question was old one and, therefore, he come to the conclusion that the rent of the two buildings cannot be compared in fixing fair rent of the shops situated in the old building. He also held that Yash Kamal building is a new building and all sorts of facilities are available in the said building.
In order to find out the correctness of the findings of the Deputy Commissioner, I have gone through the enquiry report submitted by the Special Officer, which has been annexed in the writ petition as well as the other documents annexed with the writ petition and I find that there was nothing on the record before the Deputy Commissioner to arrive at such a conclusion. Such finding of the Deputy Commissioner is certainly not based on the materials on record. He could not have decided the appeal on the basis of his own personal knowledge.
I further find from the order of the Sub Divisional Officer i.e. the Rent Controller that he, on consideration of several factors, has fixed the fair rent at Rs.15/- per Sq. Ft. , which, in my view, cannot be said to be illegal or invalid or unjustified for any reason.
For the reasons stated above, both the writ petitions are allowed. The Orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 22.10.2002 in H.R.C. Appeal No. 25 of 2001 - 02 and H.R.C. Appeal No. 24/2002 - 03 as well as the Orders dated 25.02.2003 passed by the Commissioner South Chhotanagpur Division in H.R.C. Revision No. 167/2002 and 167A/2002 are hereby set aside and the order of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 18.07.2002 as contained in Annexure-3, is hereby affirmed.
(Amareshwar Sahay, J.) RC/