Is A Writ Petition Maintainable for Challenging Rent Fixation Without Exhausting Statutory Remedies Under the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011? – Scope of Judicial Review and Procedural Prerequisites Upheld

The High Court reaffirmed that when an alternative remedy exists under the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011, writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked, and parties must pursue statutory remedies first; the decision upholds established precedent and acts as binding authority on subordinate courts in Jharkhand.

 

Summary

Category Data
Case Name WPC/4290/2022 of SUDHANSU KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
CNR JHHC010298022022
Date of Registration 01-09-2022
Decision Date 15-10-2025
Disposal Nature Disposed Off
Judgment Author HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
Court High Court of Jharkhand
Bench Single Judge
Precedent Value Binding on subordinate courts in Jharkhand
Type of Law Rent Control, Procedural Law (Writ Jurisdiction)
Questions of Law Whether direct recourse to writ jurisdiction is maintainable for challenging rent enhancement orders when an alternative remedy before the Rent Controller exists under the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011?
Ratio Decidendi
  • The Court held that when there is a statutory remedy available under the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011, parties are required to avail that remedy first.
  • The writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to pursue the remedy before the Rent Controller, where a similar proceeding was already pending.
  • The Court found no objection from the respondents and accordingly disposed of the writ petition, reaffirming the established legal position concerning exhaustion of statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction.
Facts as Summarised by the Court
  • The petitioner challenged a substantial rent increase for his shop, effected without notice or hearing, under a new bill and a rent fixation order by authorities.
  • He alleged non-compliance with statutory procedures under the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011.
  • During the hearing, the petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition to pursue his pending remedy before the Rent Controller, which the Court permitted.

Practical Impact

Category Impact
Binding On All subordinate courts in Jharkhand
Persuasive For Other High Courts considering writ petitions in the face of available statutory remedies
Follows Established legal principle that writ jurisdiction is not to be ordinarily exercised where alternative statutory remedies exist

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

  • The High Court reaffirmed and enforced the bar on invoking writ jurisdiction where an alternative remedy is available under the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011.
  • Litigants must exhaust statutory remedies before approaching the writ court for rent control matters.
  • Courts may allow withdrawal of writ petitions with liberty to pursue the correct forum if raised during hearing and unopposed by the respondents.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

  • The Court noted that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy before the Rent Controller for grievance about rent enhancement and procedure under the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011.
  • Since a similar proceeding was already pending before the Rent Controller, there was no cause to continue with the writ petition.
  • At the petitioner’s request and with no objection from the respondents, the petition was disposed of with liberty for the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy.
  • The decision follows, and gives binding effect to, the settled principle that writ jurisdiction is not maintainable when alternative effective remedies exist, except in exceptional circumstances.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner

  • Challenged arbitrary and substantial rent enhancement without notice or opportunity of hearing, and non-compliance with procedure under the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011.
  • Sought quashing of the new rent bills and fixation orders.
  • Requested leave to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to pursue the remedy before the Rent Controller, due to similar pending proceedings.

Respondents

  • Raised no objection to withdrawal and liberty being granted to pursue statutory remedies.

Factual Background

The petitioner is a shop allottee in Sakchi Bazaar, Jamshedpur. Authorities issued a new rent bill, increasing the monthly rent from Rs.48 to Rs.13,600 plus GST, allegedly without following the mandatory procedure or giving notice. The petitioner claimed the action was arbitrary and in breach of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011. During the hearing, it was indicated that a similar matter was already pending before the Rent Controller, and the petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition to pursue those proceedings.

Statutory Analysis

The judgment references procedural requirements of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011, concerning rent fixation and redressal of rent disputes. The Act provides a specific forum (Rent Controller) and procedure for challenging rent increases, which must be exhausted before approaching the High Court under writ jurisdiction.

Alert Indicators

  • ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirmatively applies established precedent regarding the bar on writ jurisdiction when statutory remedies are available.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Comments

No comments to show.