Jharkhand High Court
Purshotamlal Rungta & Another vs Rajesh Kasera & Another on 27 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P.(C) No. 3880 of 2007
........
Purshotamlal Rungta & Another .... ..... Petitioners
Versus
Rajesh Kasera & Another .... .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
............
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rahul Gupta, Advocate.
Mr. N.K. Pasari, Advocate.
For the Respondents :
........
13/27.09.2021.
Heard, learned counsel, Mr. Rahul Gupta assisted by learned
counsel for the petitioners, Mr. N. K. Pasari.
The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for quashing of the
order dated 15.05.2007 passed by learned Commissioner, South
Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, in B.B.C. Revision No.18/2000, whereby
and whereunder the learned Commissioner has pleased to pass an order
under Section 16 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control
Act, 1982, directing the petitioners herein to deposit the arrears of rent
from 20.09.1995 till date, at the rate of Rs.840/- per month in the Court of
the House Controller, Ranchi within a fortnight.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Execution
Case No.09/2008 filed against the order dated 15.05.2007 passed in
B.B.C. Revision No.18/2000, has been dismissed. Apart from that, the
relationship of the petitioners with respondents, Rajesh Kasera and
Kumari Meenakshi Kasera have never been admitted by the petitioners
being the defendants in Title Eviction Suit No.57/1993 preferred by the
Gopal Kasera, father of these respondents before the court of learned Sub-
Judge -IX, Civil Court, Ranchi and the suit was dismissed on 28.11.2006.
The relevant portion has been reflected at page no.6 of the impugned
judgment where it has been stated that the plaintiff has proved a few
receipts- ''jlhn fdjk;k edku" as Exhibit-3 series. The defendants have
denied the signature of defendant no.2 over the receipts. The defendants
are the writ petitioners before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that
learned Sub-Judge-IX, Civil Court, Ranchi has observed that "in my
opinion, the onus lies upon the plaintiff to examine an expert when the
defendants did not admit their signature over the rent receipt to be
genuine" and thus dismissed the suit. Against the said judgment plaintiffs /
appellants preferred Title Appeal No.04/2007 before the court of learned
Xth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, which was allowed in
terms of judgment dated 06.03.2008 holding that plaintiffs have
successfully proved the relationship of landlord and tenant between the
plaintiffs and the defendants, particularly when the defendant's tried to set
up their own title over the suit premises and miserably failed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that
learned Lower Appellate Court in Title Appeal No.04/2007 has also
observed that plaintiff is at liberty to get the order of the House Rent
Controller dated 17.12.1997, executed under Section 23 of the Bihar
Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982, in accordance with
law. The Execution Case No.09/2008 has already been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that
second appeal has already been admitted before this Hon'ble Court vide
S. A. No.105/2008 on 12.10.2011 on the following substantial question of
law:-
"Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court has
erred in reversing the findings and judgment and decree of
the learned Trial Court on erroneous interpretation
regarding the legal effect of Ext.-1 and Ext.-3 series in spite
of the specific denial of signing the said documents by the
defendants?"
Learned counsel for the petitioners has thus submitted that this
Court may set aside the order passed by the learned Commissioner, South
Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, in B.B.C. Revision No.18/2000.
Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents on repeated call.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and on the basis of
the materials brought on record, it is admitted that the proceeding is
admitted before this Hon'ble Court in second appeal, but in view of
Section 16 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act,
1982 and in view of the judgment passed by the Ho'nble High Court of
Judicature at Patna in the case of Deonarayan Singh and others Vs.
Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division and others reported in 1985 PLJR
1 (FB), this Court directs the petitioners to deposit the aforesaid amount
before the Nazarat, Civil Court, Ranchi during pendency of the Second
Appeal vide No.105/2008 or till any further order passed by this Hon'ble
Court in Second Appeal No. 105/2008.
The rent must be deposited by 15 th day of each English calendar
month and arrears shall be deposited in 12 equal installments, which shall
starts from 1st October, 2021.
Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Jay/-
