Sudhansu Kumar Srivastava vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Facts

The petitioner, Sudhanshu Kumar Srivastava, filed a writ petition challenging a bill issued by the Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee (JNAC) for the month of May 2022. This bill demanded a rent of Rs. 13,600/- plus GST of Rs. 2,448/-, totaling Rs. 16,048/-. The petitioner contended that this represented an arbitrary enhancement of over 1000% from the previously paid rent of Rs. 48/-, which was collected by Tata Steel JUSCO. The petitioner also challenged a letter dated 01.05.2022 from the Sub-Divisional Officer cum Rent Controller, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur, addressed 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 to quash these demands and orders, and requested that rent be fixed following the procedure prescribed under the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011.

Held

The Court did not decide the merits of the case. After some arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition. The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue their remedy before the Rent Controller, where similar proceedings were stated to be pending. The respondents' counsel raised no objection to this withdrawal. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with the liberty granted to the petitioner. The Court did not make any findings on the alleged arbitrary enhancement of rent or the validity of the letter dated 01.05.2022. No issue was expressly left undecided as the petition was withdrawn.

Key Issues

1. Whether the enhancement of rent by the Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee (JNAC) by over 1000% for the petitioner's shop, from Rs. 48/- to Rs. 16,048/- (including GST), for the month of May 2022, is arbitrary and without basis, particularly in light of the previous rent collection by Tata Steel JUSCO? (Question of fact and law) 2. Whether the letter dated 01.05.2022 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer cum Rent Controller, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur, fixing the rent exorbitantly high, is liable to be quashed for being arbitrary and issued without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing? (Question of fact and law) Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the rent enhancement was arbitrary, without basis, and made without any notice or opportunity of hearing. The petitioner relied on the previous rent of Rs. 48/- collected by Tata Steel JUSCO and sought adherence to the procedure under the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011. The petitioner also challenged the letter dated 01.05.2022 as arbitrary and violative of natural justice. Respondents' contentions: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the respondents.