Bimal Rajak @ Vimal Rajak vs Parmila Devi
2021 Latest Caselaw 2615 Jhar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    [Civil Appellate Jurisdiction]
                            SA. No. 202 of 2017
         Bimal Rajak @ Vimal Rajak                     .... .. ...          Appellant(s)
                                     Versus
         1.Parmila Devi
         2.Hira Lao Sao .                                        .. ... ... Respondent(s)
                          ...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through :-Video Conferencing) .........

      For the Appellant(s)            :    Mr. R. N. Sahay, Sr. Advocate
                                           Mr. Yashvardhan, Advocate
      For the Respondents             :
                          ..........

09 / 29.07.2021. Heard, Mr. R. N. Sahay, learned Senior counsel assisted by learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Yashvardhan.

The instant Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 17.02.2017 and decree signed on 21.02.2017 passed by learned District Judge- II, Ramgarh, in Eviction Title Appeal No.06/2014 whereby the judgment dated 13.05.2014 and decree signed on 21.05.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Hazaribagh, in Eviction Suit No.14 of 2008 has been affirmed.

Mr. R. N. Sahay, learned Senior counsel has submitted that the defendant/appellant/appellant has preferred the instant Second Appeal against the concurrent findings passed by both the learned courts below.

Mr. R. N. Sahay, learned Senior counsel assisted by learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Yashvardhan has submitted that the case of the defendant/ appellant/ appellant is that in absence of admission between the parties with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant whether defendant/appellant can be evicted from the suit premises in a summary proceeding of Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 or not?

Mr. R. N. Sahay, learned Senior counsel for the appellant in support of his submission has relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Tiwary vs. Basudeo Prasad & Anr,, reported in (2002) 1 SCC 90.

Considering the same, let the instant Second Appeal be Admitted on the following substantial questions of Law :-

(i)Whether in a summary proceeding where the relationship of landlord and tenant is not admitted, the defendant/appellant/appellant can be evicted from a suit property?

(ii) Whether plaintiffs have to file suit for right, title, interest and recovery of possession before the appropriate forum?

Call for the Lower Court Records.

Let notice be issued [in main memo of appeal as well as in the Interlocutory application vide I.A. No.4865 of 2018 filed for stay of Execution Case No.01/2017 arising out of Eviction Suit No.14/2008] to respondent Nos.1 and 2 [Respondent No.1- Parmila Devi, W/o Rajendra Prasad Sahu and Respondent No.2- Hira Lao Sao, S/o Rajendra Prasad Sahu, Both residents of Marar, Ranchi Road, P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh, District Ramgar, under both process i.e. under Registered Cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process, for which requisites etc., must be filed within two weeks .

The appellant is also directed to serve personal notice to the respondents.

In the meantime, status quo shall be maintained.

However, If a suit is filed for declaration of right, title, interest and recovery of possession by the plaintiffs before the appropriate Forum, the pendency of the instant Second Appeal will not come in the way before the learned court below to decide the said suit of the plaintiffs/respondents/respondents.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sandeep/