Ramesh Kumar Agarawal vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Facts

The petitioner, Ramesh Kumar Agrawal, filed a writ petition challenging a bill for monthly rent issued by the Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee (JNAC) for May 2022. The bill demanded Rs. 27,200/- plus GST of Rs. 4896/-, totaling Rs. 32,096/-. The petitioner contended that this represented an arbitrary increase of over 1000% from the previous rent of Rs. 85/- charged by Tata Steel JUSCO. The petitioner also challenged a letter dated 01.05.2022 from the Sub-Divisional Officer cum Rent Controller, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur, to Tata Steel Ltd., which allegedly fixed the rent at an exorbitantly high rate without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner sought quashing of the bill and the letter, and a direction to fix rent according to the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011.

Held

The petitioner, after some arguments, sought permission to withdraw the writ petition. The petitioner intended to pursue their remedy before the Rent Controller, where similar proceedings were stated to be pending. The learned counsel for the respondents raised no objection to this request. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner the liberty to pursue their remedy before the Rent Controller. The Court did not make any findings on the merits of the petitioner's claims regarding the arbitrary rent fixation or the validity of the bill and the letter. The operative direction was to allow the petitioner to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the appropriate forum.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Bill No. JNAC/22-23/1047 dated 31.05.2022, demanding Rs. 27,200/- plus GST of Rs. 4896/-, issued by the Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee for the shops of the petitioner, is arbitrary and liable to be quashed, considering the alleged over 1000% increase from the previous rent of Rs. 85/-. 2. Whether the letter dated 01.05.2022, issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer cum Rent Controller, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur, to the Chief Corporate Administration, Tata Steel Ltd., fixing rent at an exorbitantly high rate without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, is arbitrary and liable to be quashed. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the rent increase was arbitrary, baseless, and imposed without any notice or opportunity of hearing, contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011. The petitioner sought to have the rent fixed in accordance with the said Act. Respondents' Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents.