Jharkhand High Court
Md. Khurshid Khan vs Khushwant Singh Sabherwal on 2 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 62 of 2022
------
Md. Khurshid Khan .... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Khushwant Singh Sabherwal
2. The State of Jharkhand
3. Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad
4. Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad
.... .... .... Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pasari, Advocate
For the O.P. No.1 : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate
For the O.P. Nos.2,3&4 : Mr. Praveen Akhouri, S.C. (Mines)-I
Mr. Aishwarya Prakash, A.C. to S.C. (Mines)-I
Oral Order
10/ Dated :02.11.2022
Instant Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed against the order
dated 22.01.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No.69 of 2019 by learned District
Judge-V, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder the petition filed under Order 41
Rule 27 for additional evidence, has been rejected.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that he
was defendant in Original Title (Eviction) Suit No.03 of 2013 which was filed
on the ground of default and personal necessity under Section 11(1)(c)&(d) of
Jharkhand Building (L.R.E.) Control Act.
3. The suit was decreed against which the petitioner preferred appeal on
the ground that he was not tenant rather he was in possession of the said shop
on the basis of agreement of sale for which a separate suit for specific
performance of contract has been filed being Title Suit No.136 of 2015 which
is pending before the learned Court below.
4. It is further submitted that suit property has already been sold by the
plaintiff by registered sale deed dated 30.05.2005 by the plaintiff in favour of
Khushwant Singh Shabherwal and Rabindra Singh Shabherwal. In order to
bring this sale deed on record, the petition for additional evidence was filed.
Although the sale deed was executed with respect to the suit property in the
year 2005 but suppressing this fact, the plaintiff filed the Eviction Suit in the
year 2013 claiming the property to be the owner of complex including the
shop. Reliance has been placed in the case of Sanjay Kumar Singh Versus
The State of Jharkhand reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 268 wherein it has
been held that admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon the
relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an
opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it
depends upon whether or not the appellate court requires the evidence sought
to be adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial
cause.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of opposite party no.1
that Civil Appeal No.69 of 2019 is at the stage of argument since January,
2022 and the present petition has been filed only to delay the matter. Under
Section 2(f) of the Jharkhand Building (L.R.E.) Control Act, 'landlord', means
the owner of the building and includes a person who for the time being is
receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of the building, whether on his own
account or on behalf of another, or as an agent, trustee, executor,
administrator, receiver, guardian or whoever so receives the rent, or entitled to
receive the rent, if the building were let to a tenant.
6. The respondent no.1, the plaintiff is the owner/proprietor of the
building known as Sabherwal Complex, Naya Bazar, Dhanbad in which the
defendant/petitioner was inducted as a monthly tenant under an agreement of
tenancy dated 25.10.2004 the photo copy of which has been enclosed herewith
the counter affidavit. The petitioner under this tenancy agreement had entered
into an agreement to take the shop under rent of Rs.400/- per month and the
advance of Rs.1,20,000/- was to be paid to the first party. In pursuance to the
tenancy agreement, the petitioner had been paying rent earlier and after default
eviction suit was filed. It is also submitted that it will be apparent from the
judgment delivered in Title (Eviction) Suit that the petitioner have been
paying rent to respondent no.1 and thereby admitting landlord tenant
relationship. Once the landlord tenant relationship has been accepted,
expressly or impliedly, it is not open to the tenant to take the plea that the
landlord was not having a valid title in view of Section 116 of Evidence Act.
7. Under the aforesaid circumstance, I do not find any infirmity in the
impugned order.
8. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed. Learned Appellate
Court is directed to dispose of the appeal preferably within three months from
the date of this order. I.A. No.5010 of 2022 stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Anit
