Jharkhand High Court
Petitioners vs Gopal Krishna Verma on 13 January, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 1092 of 2023
1(a) Nilu Devi, aged about 45 years, W/o Late Baban
Singh
1(b) Khusboo Kumari, aged about 21 years, D/o Late
Baban Singh
Both resident of 7HF-2/2, HIG Flat, Dindli,
P.O.+P.S.-Adityapur, District-Seraikella-Kharwan,
Jharkhand.
1(c) Raj Kumar Singh, aged about 20 years, S/o Late
Baban Singh, resident of 7HF-2/2, HIG Flat, Dindli,
P.O.+P.S.-Adityapur, District-Seraikella-Kharwan,
Jharkhand.
..... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Gopal Krishna Verma, S/o Late Lata Awadhesh
Kumar Verma, R/o Flat No. E/542, City Palace,
P.O.+P.S.-Adityapur, District-Seraikella-Kharsawan,
Jharkhand.
2. Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing
Board, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S.-Argora, District-Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
..... ... Respondents
--------
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
——
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate.
: Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, Advocate.
For the Resp. No. 1 : Mr. Anup Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
: Mr. Karan Shahdeo, Advocate.
For the Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate.
: Ms. Surabhi, Advocate.
------
19/ 13.01.2025 Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari along with Mr. Abhishek Kumar
Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Anup Kumar
Sinha along with Mr. Karan Shahdeo, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No. 1 and Mr. Sachin Kumar along with Ms Surabhi,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2-Jharkhand State
Housing Board.
2. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-Jharkhand State Housing Board submits that by order dated
29.11.2023, the Jharkhand State Housing Board was directed to be
made as a party respondent No. 2 in the present case, pursuant to that
the counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2-
Jharkhand State Housing Board. He submits that the Jharkhand State
-1-
Housing Board was not a party before the learned court, who has
passed two orders, which are under challenge.
3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the orders
dated 08.08.2023 and 18.07.2023, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional
Officer-cum-Rent Controller, Seraikella under the Jharkhand Building
(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011, in connection with
Eviction Case No. 176 of 2022.
4. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the respondent No. 1 herein has instituted
petition under Section 19(1)(d) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent
and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer,
Seraikella with a prayer for eviction of the petitioner from the house
property, situated at 7HF-2/2, HIG Flat, Dindli, Adityapur, which was
leased out by the respondent No. 2 Jharkhand State Housing Board in
favour of respondent No. 1 vide lease deed No. 672/693 dated
11.02.2020. He submits that the petitioner appeared in the said eviction
case and file his written statement. He further submits that thereafter an
application dated 09.06.2023 has been filed by the petitioner raising a
preliminary objection stating therein that only the Jharkhand State
Housing Board has the jurisdiction to evict any person from the
property belonging to the Housing Board and the present eviction case
is not maintainable before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Seraikella. He
then submits that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Seraikella by order dated
18.07.2023, rejected the said objection of the petitioner on erroneous
ground and the case was directed to be listed on 25.07.2023. He
submits that thereafter the petitioner has filed a petition dated
28.07.2023, praying for grant of some time, so that the petitioner can
approach the Hon’ble High Court against the order dated 25.07.2023,
however, on the said petition, no order was passed. He then submits
that subsequently by judgment dated 08.08.2023, the Sub-Divisional
Officer-Seraikella, in Eviction Case No. 176 of 2022 has directed the
petitioner to vacate the premises.
5. On the above background of these facts, by way of referring
Section 58 of the Jharkhand State Housing Board Act, 2000 submits
-2-
that Section 19(1)(d) of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction)
Control Act, 2011 is not applicable and the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Seraikella is not the competent authority, as the premises in question
belongs to the Jharkhand State Housing Board and in view of that the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Seraikella has erred in passing the
aforementioned two orders.
6. By way of referring the further provision made in Section
59 of the Jharkhand State Housing Board Act, 2000, he submits that the
summary procedure is described therein and for violation of any terms
prescribed therein, only the Jharkhand State Housing Board authority
can proceed and that authority is having the power to pass the
appropriate orders. By way of referring the definition of landlord under
Section 2(g) of Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control
Act, 2011, he submits that the landlord is prescribed therein can said to
be the landlord. To buttress his argument, he relied in the case of
Baburao Shantaram More Versus Bombay Housing Board and Anr.,
reported in 1953(2) SCC 845 and by way of referring the said
judgment, he submits that identical was the situation in that case and
the Bombay High Court has decided that Rent Controller can proceed
in the matter, however, in an appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
reversed the order of the Bombay High Court, as such, the case of the
petitioners is fully covered in light of the said judgment. On these
grounds, he submits that both the impugned orders may kindly be
quashed.
7. Per Contra, Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel appearing
for the Jharkhand State Housing Board submits that the property in
question was transferred to the respondent No. 1 by the Board by a
registered lease deed, which has been brought on record by way of
supplementary counter affidavit, filed by the respondent No. 1. He
submits that the Jharkhand State Housing Board is not the respondent in
the proceeding, which is under challenge before this Court. He further
draws the attention of the court to Sections 58 and 59 of the Jharkhand
State Housing Board Act, 2000 and submits that the Board is having the
jurisdiction to proceed against the person, who are directly taken over
the property of the Board by way of any means either legal or illegal or
-3-
for violation of any term and condition, the Board can proceed against
the person, in favour of whom the property has been transferred. He
further draws the attention of the court to Section 41 of the Bihar State
Housing Board (Management and Disposal of Housing Estates)
Regulation, 1983 and by way of referring Regulation-41, he submits
that once the property is transferred on the basis of hire-purchase
agreement, the person is deemed to be the owner. According to him,
once Housing Board will find that there is direct confrontation with the
property of the Housing Board, the remedy is there under Section 59 of
the Jharkhand State Housing Board Act, 2000. He submits that if after
the transfer of the property, further there is an agreement with the third
party with the purchaser, the purchaser is having the remedy of
instituted a case, in view of that the bar made under Section 58 of the
Jharkhand State Housing Board Act, 2000 is not attracted so far as
present case is concerned. He submits that the Board is having the
power once it comes to the knowledge of the Board that any purchaser
has violated the terms and conditions of the lease deed and against him
the Board can proceed. On these grounds, he submits that there is no
illegality in both the impugned orders, passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer-cum-Rent Controller.
8. Mr. Anup Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No. 1 submits that the petitioner is happened to be the
tenant on rent of answering respondent No. 1 and initially the tenancy
was for 11 months, which was renewed for the further period of 11
months and it was month to month tenancy. He submits that the said
rent agreement between the respondent No. 1 and the petitioner, which
has been brought on record in the supplementary counter affidavit filed
on behalf of respondent No. 1 as Annexure-A. By way of referring the
said agreement, he submits that the petitioner has recognized the
answering respondent No. 1 as a landlord of the said house property
and himself as a tenant of that property and that’s why he was paying
the rent directly to the respondent No. 1. He further submits that the
respondent No. 2 was allotted the Flat No. 7-HF 2/2 by the Jharkhand
State Housing Board on 12.11.1997 by an agreement with respect
thereto was executed on 13.07.2011 and after full payment of the
-4-
consideration amount, the lease deed on perpetual basis was executed
and registered on 11.02.2020 in favour of respondent No. 1, contained
in Annexure-B of the said supplementary counter affidavit. By way of
referring the said lease deed, particularly at the bottom of page No. 2,
he submits that it is depicted therein that the Housing Board’s
Adityapur, Jamshedpur, H.I.G. Flat no. 7 HF-2/2 is being finally
transferred in favour of the purchaser, who is the respondent No. 1
herein. By way of referring page-3 of the said lease deed, he submits
that it is further stated that the said house property has been transferred
to respondent No. 1 on the perpetual lease hold basis and further clause-
1 of the terms and conditions mentioned on the same very page that the
respondent No. 1 is already in occupation of the aforesaid HIG Flat No.
7HF-2/2 on hire purchase basis. In light of these, he submits that it is
clear that the subject house property is fully and for all practical
purpose belongs to the answering respondent No. 1, who has paid total
consideration amount to the tune of Rs. 6,50,000/-. He further
elaborates his argument by way of saying that once the said transfer is
there, Section 108 (j) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is attracted,
which recognize the right of the lessee to transfer absolutely or by way
of mortgage or sub-lease, the whole or any part of his interest in the
leasehold property. According to him in light of Section 2(g) of the
Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011, it is
the landlord-respondent No. 1, who was receiving the rent from the
petitioners. On these grounds, he submits that both the orders have
been legally passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Rent Controller
and the same are valid, as such, this petition may kindly be dismissed.
9. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel
appearing for the respective parties, this court has to only answer as to
whether in light of lease deed in favour of respondent No. 1, he can
institute a case under Section 19(1)(d) of the Jharkhand Building
(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 or not and is there any bar
in light of Sections 58 and 59 of the Jharkhand State Housing Board
Act, 2000 to invoke provision of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent
and Eviction) Control Act, 2011.
10. It is an admitted position in light of Annexures brought on
-5-
record in the supplementary counter affidavit of respondent No. 1 that
an agreement of sale was entered into between the Jharkhand State
Housing Board and the respondent No. 1 to transfer the Flat No. 7HF-
2/2 in favour of respondent No.1 and pursuant to that finally a
registered transfer lease deed was entered between the Jharkhand State
Housing Board and respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 1 was put in
possession. The agreement dated 01.07.2021 between the petitioner and
respondent No. 1 has been brought on record by way of Annexure-A to
the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1,
which clearly suggests that the respondent No. 1 has let out the said
house in question in favour of petitioner on month to month tenancy
basis and petitioner was paying the rent to the respondent No. 1.
11. Section 2(g) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and
Eviction) Control Act, 2011 speaks as under:-
“Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context
otherwise requires–
(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.”
12. In view of the above definition, it is crystal clear that the
landlord means the owner of the building who includes a person
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. Admittedly, the
agreement for rent was entered into between the respondent No. 1 and
the petitioner and the petitioner was paying the rent, in view of that it
cannot be said that respondent No. 1 is not coming within the
definition of landlord in light of Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and
Eviction) Control Act, 2011.
-6-
13. Section-2((ix) of the Bihar State Housing Board
(Management and Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulation, 1983
speaks of hire-purchase, which speaks as under:-
“2(ix) “Conveyance Deed” means an
agreement in the prescribed form between
the Board and the allottee or hirer or the
housing estate agency as the case may be, by
which the title in the property is transferred
to the allottee or hirer or the Housing Estate
Agency on the terms and conditions specified
in the said agreement.”
14. In view of the above provision, it transpires that the hire-
purchaser secure the rights in a property under any of the scheme.
Regulation-41 of the said regulations speaks as under:-
“41. The hirer shall cease to be a tenant and
shall be the owner of the flat dwelling unit
only after the last instalment of hire purchase
and all other dues have been paid by him to
the Board and the transfer of the property to
him has been effected through a Conveyance
Deed in such form as may be prescribed by
the Board.”
15. From the above, it is crystal clear that once the hirer paid
the entire amount, he will be treated the owner of the said property. In
the case in hand, it is an admitted position that the property in question
was leased out in favour of respondent No. 1, thus, transferring of the
said property in favour of respondent No. 1 is established.
16. Section 58 of the Bihar State Housing Board Act, 1982
[Jharkhand State Housing Board Act, 2000] speaks as under:-
“58. Exclusion of the Bihar Buildings (Lease,
Rent and Eviction) Control Act 1947 [Bihar
Act III of 1947] [Now Act 4 of 1983.]. – The
provision of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent
and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (Bihar Act
III of 1947), or any law corresponding
therein for the time being in force in any area
to which this Act extends-
(a)shall not apply nor shall be deemed to
have ever applied to any land or building
belonging to or vesting in the Board under or
for the purposes of this Act;
-7-
(b)shall not apply nor shall be deemed to
have ever applied as against the Board to
any tenancies or other like relationship
created by the Board in respect of such land
or buildings;
(c)but shall apply to any-land or building
based to the Board:
Provided that nothing in this Section shall
permit the eviction of a person in occupation
of any accommodation from before the date
of its acquisition by the Board save in
accordance with the provisions of that Act or
of Section 59.”
17. Section 59 of the Jharkhand State Housing Board Act,
2000 stipulates as under:-
“59. Summary procedure for eviction and
recovery of rents.-(1)Notwithstanding
anything contained in the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 (Act I of 1882), the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908) or
any other law for the time being in force, if
the competent authority is of opinion-
(a)that the person authorised to occupy
Board premises and has-
(i)not paid rent lawfully due from him in
respect of such premises for a period of not
less than three months; or
(ii)sub-let, without the permission in writing
of the Board, the whole or any part of such
premises, or
(iii)committed, or is committing any act
contrary to the provisions of clause (o) of
Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882 (Act 4 of 1882); or
(iv)made or is making material alteration to,
alteration in, such premises without the
previous written permission of the Board, or
(v)otherwise acted in contravention of any of
the terms, expressed or implied, under which
he is authorised to occupy such premises, or
(b)that any person is in unauthorised
occupation of any Board premises.The
competent authority may issue in the manner
hereafter provided a notice in writing calling
upon the person, if any, authorised to occupy-8-
as well as any other person who may be in
occupation of the whole or any part of the
premises to show cause why order of eviction
and recovery of arrears of rent and damages,
if any should not be made.
(2)The notice under sub-section (1) shall
specify-
(a)the grounds on which the order of eviction
or of recovery of arrears of rent or damages
is proposed to be made; and
(b)the date by which cause against the
proposed order may be shown, such date
being not earlier than fifteen days from the
date of issue of the notice provided that the
competent authority may on application
allow further time on such terms as to
payment of the amount claimed in the notice
otherwise, as it deems fit.
(3)The competent authority shall cause the
notice under sub-section (1) to be served by
having it affixed on outer door or some other
conspicuous part of the Board premises and
in such other manner as may be prescribed,
whereupon the notice shall be deemed to
have been duly given to all persons
concerned.
(4)Where the competent authority knows or
has reason to believe that any person is in
occupation of the Board premises, then,
without prejudice to the provisions of sub-
section (3) it shall cause copy of the notice to
be served on him by registered post or
delivery or tender to him or in such other
manner as may be prescribed.
(5)If, after considering the cause, if any,
shown by any person in pursuance of the
notice under sub-section (1) and any
evidence he may produce in support of the
same and after giving him a reasonable
opportunity of being heard, the competent
authority is satisfied that any of the
circumstances mentioned in sub-section (1)
exists, or existed on the date of the issue of
the notice, it may on a date to be fixed for the
purpose make an order stating reasons
therein directing that the Board premises
-9-
shall be vacated by all persons who may be
in occupation thereof or any part thereof and
may further order that any person shall pay
such amount of arrears of rent or damages as
may be specified in the order.
(6)If a person who has been asked to show
cause under sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (iii)
of clause (a) of sub-section (1) pays to the
Board within the time allowed, the rent in
arrears together with interest thereon as
fixed by the Board and such costs as may be
prescribed, or as the case may be remedies to
the satisfaction of the competent authority the
breach of the term violated by him, the
competent authority shall, in lieu of evicting
such person under sub-section (5) discharge
the notice, and whereupon such person shall
continue to hold the premises on the same
term on which he held them immediately
before such notice was served on him.
(7)The competent authority shall for the
purpose of holding any inquiry under this
chapter, have, the same powers as are vested
in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908), when trying
a suit, in respect of the following matter,
namely:-
(a)summoning and enforcing the attendance
of any person and examining him on oath;
(b)requiring the discovery and production of
documents; and
(c)any other matter which may be prescribed,
be deemed to be a Civil Court within the
meaning of Sections 345 and 346 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974),
and any proceeding in such inquiry shall be
deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the
meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the
Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860).
(8)If any person refuses or fails to comply
with an order of eviction under subsection (5)
within thirty days from the date of the order
or such longer time as the competent
authority may allow, the competent authority
or any other officer duly authorised by it in
this behalf, may evict him from, and take-10-
possession of, the Board premises, and may
for that purpose use such force as may be
necessary.
(9)Any arrears of rent or damages ordered to
be paid under sub-section (5) may be
recovered as arrears of land revenue.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this
Section, a person continuing in occupation of
any Board premises after the authority under
which or the capacity in which he was
allowed to occupy the premises has been duly
determined or as the case may be, has ceased
shall also be deemed to be an “unauthorised
occupation”, and a person shall not merely
by reason of the fact that he had paid any
amount as rent be deemed to be in authorised
occupation.”
18. In light of the provision made in Section 58 of the
Jharkhand State Housing Board Act, 2000, it transpires that it has been
prescribed therein that the provision of Jharkhand Building (Lease,
Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 will be excluded, where the
property is vested in the Board. Section 59 of the said Act speaks of
summary procedure for eviction and recovery of the rents. In view of
the provisions made in these two Sections, it is crystal clear that the
Jharkhand State Housing Board finds any person of violating any terms
and conditions, that Board is competent to move before the authority
under the said Act for eviction and recovery of the rent.
19. In the case in hand, there is no agreement between the
petitioner and the Jharkhand State Housing Board. It is also not an
allegation of the Jharkhand State Housing Board that the petitioner is
in illegal occupation of the property of the Board and if such a situation
is there, when the property has been transferred in favour of the
respondent No. 1 and he has entered into an agreement with the
petitioner for rent, respondent No. 1 will not be the remediless and
further Sections 58 and 59 of the Jharkhand State Housing Board Act,
2000 are meant for Jharkhand State Housing Board as there is lease
agreement between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 for rent,
that too based on the registered lease deed executed in favour of the
respondent No. 1 by the Jharkhand State Housing Board. In light of
-11-
Regulation 2(xix) and 41, once the last installment is paid, the hirer is
said to be the owner of the property in question. As such, Sections 58
and 59 of Jharkhand State Housing Board Act, 2000 are not coming to
aid of the petitioner and it cannot be said that the Sub-Divisional
Officer-cum-Rent Controller has exceeded his jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the aforesaid point is answered herein holding that there
is no illegality or any jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the
Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Rent Controller, Seraikella.
20. So far as the judgment relied by Mr. Tiwari, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner in the case of Baburao Shantaram
More (Supra) is concerned, in that case, the dispute was directly with
the Bombay Provincial Housing Board and pursuant to occupied
property of Board, several persons without any authority or title
occupied portion of the said came, in that background, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that once the property is of the Board, then the
remedy is under the Bombay Housing Board (Amendment) Act (11 of
1951) and that was the correct proposition.
21. In the case in hand, what has been discussed hereinabove,
that fact is missing, as such, the said judgment, as relied by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner is not helping the petitioner.
22. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, this
petition is dismissed.
23. However, this order will not preclude the petitioner to avail
the remedy of appeal under the provisions of Jharkhand Building
(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011.
24. If any limitation will arise in the appeal, on an appropriate
petition, the appellate authority will consider the said limitation
keeping in mind of the pendency of this petition before this court.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
[A.F.R.]
-12-