Harbhajan Singh vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Facts

The petitioner, Harbhajan Singh, filed a writ petition challenging a bill issued by the Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee (JNAC) for May 2022, which arbitrarily enhanced his monthly rent for a shop in Sakchi market from Rs. 100 to Rs. 8,000 plus GST. The petitioner argued that this enhancement was over 5000% and was imposed without any basis or prior notice. He also challenged a letter dated May 1, 2022, from the Sub-Divisional Officer cum Rent Controller, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur, which fixed rent at Rs. 80 per square foot without affording any opportunity of hearing to shop owners. The petitioner sought to quash these actions and prayed for rent enhancement to follow 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 his remedy before the Rent Controller, where similar proceedings were already pending. The respondents raised no objection to this withdrawal. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of with the liberty granted to the petitioner. The specific findings on the legality of the rent enhancement or the procedure followed by the authorities were not made by the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the enhancement of rent by the Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee (JNAC) for the petitioner's shop in Sakchi market, from Rs. 100 to Rs. 8,000 plus GST for May 2022, is arbitrary and without basis, violating principles of natural justice, particularly the right to be heard, as per the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011? 2. Whether the letter dated May 1, 2022, issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer cum Rent Controller, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur, fixing rent at Rs. 80 per square foot for shops in Sakchi market, is illegal and liable to be quashed for being fixed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the shop owners, including the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the rent enhancement was arbitrary, excessive (over 5000%), and imposed without any notice or opportunity of hearing, contrary to the established procedure under the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011. He highlighted that the previous rent was Rs. 100, charged by Tata Steel JUSCO. Respondents' Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents.