Jharkhand High Court
Malti Gupta vs Shashikant Gupta on 7 April, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:10777-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 406 of 2024
---
Malti Gupta, aged about 50 years, wife of Mohan Sah, resident of
361, Mihijam Road, Jamtara, J.P.Nagar, Dhandhra, Ward No.14,
P.O. - Jamtara, P.S. Jamtara, District- Jamtara, Jharkhand.
.....Appellant
Versus
1. Shashikant Gupta, aged about 43 years, son of Swaminath
Gupta, resident of Mihijam Road, P.O.- Jamtara, P.S.. Jamtara,
District Jamtara, Jharkhand.
2. The State Of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Project
Building Dhurwa, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Dhurwa,, District-
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. The Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, having its office
at Dumka, P.O., Dumka, P.S. Dumka, District- Dumka,
Jharkhand.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara, having its office at
Jamtara P.O. Jamtara, P.S.- Jamtara, District- Jamtara,
Jharkhand.
5. Sub Divisional Officer, Jamtara, having its office at Jamtara,
P.O. Jamtara,P.S.- Jamtara, District- Jamtara, Jharkhand.
6. Circle Officer, Jamtara, having its office at Jamtara, P.O.
Jamtara, P.S.- Jamtara, District- Jamtara, Jharkhand.
.....Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Amitabh Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : M/s. Manish Kumar, Sr.S.C.-II
Nirupama, A.C. to Sr.S.C.-II
For the Resp. No. 1 : M/s. Amritansh Vats, Amartya Choubey,
Advs.
---
05/ Dated: 07.04.2025
1. This application is allowed since it is not opposed by
the counsel for respondents.
2025:JHHC:10777-DB
2. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the
judgment dated 15th May, 2024 of the learned Single Judge in
W.P.(C) No. 1572 of 2024.
3. The appellant herein is the 6th respondent in the said
writ petition.
The appellant had initiated proceedings under the
Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (for
short 'the Act') against the respondent No.1 for eviction from the
subject property before the Controller constituted under the Act,
who had directed the eviction of the 1st respondent.
The 1st respondent challenged the same by way of
appeal under the said statute which was also dismissed.
The 1st respondent filed a revision before the
Revisional Authority which is now pending consideration before
the said authority.
4. The 1st respondent next filed the writ petition before
the Single Judge alleging that the appellant had filed a suit for
declaration of her right, title and interest in the subject property
and for recovery of possession being Original Suit No. 57 of 2019
before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division-I, Jamtara against
the 1st respondent, that during the pendency of the said suit, the
proceedings under the Act were initiated and the suit had since
been dismissed for default, though steps are said to be taken for
restoration of the same and therefore, sought stay of execution of
2025:JHHC:10777-DB
the orders of eviction passed by the Primary Authority under the
Act which were confirmed by the Appellate Authority.
5. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order
entertained the writ petition and held as under:
"Considering the factual position, in the interest of justice, it
would be proper that if a restoration application is filed and if at all
the said suit is restored, the same should be decided first. The
impugned order of eviction dated 12.02.2021 (Annexure-6) passed
by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamtara in Eviction Suit Case No. 01
of 2021 and the appellate order dated 19.01.2024 (Annexure-9)
passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara in H.R.C.A. Case No.
01/2021-22 will not be given effect to, till the final judgment and
decree is passed in Original Suit No. 57 of 2019, pending before the
Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, I, Jamtara. The parties will
proceed accordingly, as per the judgment passed in Original Suit
No. 57 of 2019, pending before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior
Division, I, Jamtara."
This appeal is preferred against the said order.
6. Counsel for the appellant contends that the concept of
ownership in a landlord-tenant litigation governed by Rent
Control Laws has to be distinguished from the one in a title suit
and inquiry as to title to the property is not to be done in
proceedings under the Act and existence of relationship of
landlord and tenant is sufficient for the authority under the Act to
proceed with the matter. He also contends that when the revision
filed by the 1st respondent is pending consideration before the
Revisional Authority under the said Act, the learned Single Judge
erred in entertaining the writ petition and granting relief to the 1st
respondent.
7. Counsel for the 1st respondent contended that there is
no relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellant and
2025:JHHC:10777-DB
the 1st respondent and that the proceedings under the Act are not
maintainable and therefore, the 1st respondent was justified in
approaching this Court for relief in writ petition.
8. We agree with the submission of the counsel for the
appellant that in proceedings for eviction like those under the Act,
existence of relationship of landlord and tenant is relevant and
adjudication of title is not warranted. The question of title of the
property should not be gone into or examined in an eviction suit.
(See Ranbir Singh v, Asharfi Lal (1995) 6 SCC 580],
Tribhuvanshankar Vs. Amrutlal[(2014) 2 SCC 788] and Life
Insurance Corporation of India Vrs. India Automobiles and
Co. And others [(1990) 4 SCC 286]).
9. Since the appellant had succeeded before the Primary
Authority as well as the First Appellate Authority under the Act
and the revision filed against the said orders is pending before the
Revisional Authority under the Act, it is open to the 1st
respondent to pursue the same and get appropriate interim or
final relief therein.
Having invoked the revisional jurisdiction under the
Act, it was not open to the 1st respondent to file a writ petition in
this Court and seek to circumvent the eviction orders granted
against him by the authorities under the Act.
10. Therefore, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is
set aside and the appeal is allowed; the Revisional Authority is
directed to decide the revision expeditiously in accordance with
2025:JHHC:10777-DB
law after hearing both sides or at least decide the stay application
filed in the revision filed by the 1st respondent within two weeks
after hearing both sides.
(M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
jk/vikas
