Om Prakash Agarwal vs Om Prakash Agrawal
2025 Latest Caselaw 782 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Om Prakash Agarwal vs Om Prakash Agrawal on 14 July, 2025

                                                2025:JHHC:19185


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
         Civil Revision No. 40 of 2019

Om Prakash Agarwal, aged 57 years. Son of Late Nek Chand
Agarwal, resident of Purulia Road, Mango, P.O. and P.S. - Mango,
Town - Jamshedpur, District - East Singhbhum.
                              ..... Defendant / Petitioner
                        Versus
1. Om Prakash Agrawal, son of Late Bhagirath Mal Agrawal.
2. Ratan Kumar Agrawal, son of Late Bhagirath Mal Agrawal.
   Both residents of Dimna Road, Mango P.O. and P.S. - Mango,
   Town - Jamshedpur, District - East Singhbhum.
                               ..... Plaintiffs / Opp. Parties
3. Karuna Devi, wife of Santosh Agarwal, daughter of Late
   Bhagirathmal Agarwal, resident of Golmuri Rice Market, P.O. and
   P.S. - Golmuri, Town- Jamshedpur, District - East Singhbhum.
4. Pramila Devi, wife of Dinesh Kumar Chowdhury, daughter of Late
   Bhagirathmal Agarwal, resident of Near Gurudwara Tuiladungri,
   P.O. and P.S. - Golmuri, Town Jamshedpur, District - East
   Singhbhum.
5. Manju Devi, wife of Sajjan Agarwal, daughter of Late
   Bhagirathmal Agarwal, resident of Mousbhandar Readymade
   Market, P.O. & P.S. - Ghatsila, District - East Singhbhum.
6. Uma Devi, wife of Santosh Chawdhury, daughter of Late
   Bhagirathmal Agarwal, resident of Bandhwan, P.O. & P.S. -
   Bandhwan, District - Purulia, West Bengal.
7. Sumita Devi, wife of Rajesh Goel, daughter of late Bhagirathmal
   Agarwal, resident of Kunwar Singh Road, Ulidih, P.O. & P.S. -
   Mango, Jamshedpur.
8. Bidya Devi, wife of Mahesh Agarwal, daughter of Late
   Bhagirathmal Agarwal, resident of Raj Kharswan, P.O. & P.S. -
   Raj Kharswan, District - Seraikella-Kharswan.
9. Usha Devi, wife of Mukesh Agarwal, Daughter of Late
   Bhagirathmal Agarwal, resident of D'Costa Road, Jugsalai, P.O.
   & P.S. - Jugsalai, Jamshedpur.
             ..... Proforma Defendants / Proforma Opp. Parties
                         ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

--------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik, Advocate. For the Opp. Parties : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate.

---------

th Order No. 12/Dated: 14 July, 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2025:JHHC:19185

2. The present civil revision has been filed against the judgment dated 30.05.2019 and decree sealed and signed on 10.06.2019 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-I, Jamshedpur in Eviction Suit No. 04 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the suit filed on behalf of the plaintiffs / opposite parties was decreed and it was held that the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession of said suit premises from the defendant / petitioner.

3. The plaintiffs have filed eviction suit against the defendant for recovery of possession of the suit premises described in schedule of the plaint by evicting the defendant therefrom. The plaintiffs have entered into a registered deed of lease with the defendant on 13.08.2010, whereby the plaintiffs granted lease of suit premises in favour of defendant for a fixed period of three years commencing from 01.07.2010 ending on expiry of 30.06.2013, as per terms of the lease deed the rent of the suit premises was fixed at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per month. After expiry of fixed period of three years there was no renewal of lease and no fresh lease deed has been entered into between the plaintiffs and defendant, the defendant should have delivered the vacant possession of the suit premises. Thereafter, the plaintiffs sent notice to defendant on 17.06.2013 through the lawyer requesting him to deliver the vacant possession of the suit premises, but the defendant failed to vacate the property, again the plaintiffs sent notice on 15.07.2013 to the defendant and the defendant sent a reply on 23.07.2013 and inspite of repeated demand the defendant failed and neglected to vacate the suit premises, therefore, the suit was filed.

4. On notice, the defendant appeared and filed his written statement stating therein that the defendant's father Late Nekchand Agarwal entered into the suit land bearing Old Plot No. 2473 in the year 1956-57 and constructed thereon out of his own fund within the knowledge of the deceased adopted father of the plaintiff namely

2025:JHHC:19185

Bebhraj Agarwal. Pursuant to the peaceful occupation of the said Nekchand Agarwal, licence of his shop standing in the suit land, was granted in his name by the J.N.A.C. at Jamshedpur and subsequently vide Licence No. 33 dated 14/12-1963 and Licence No. 12321/64 dt. 22.01.1964 respectively. The said deceased father of the defendant had been running ration shop in the suit premises openly, uninterruptedly and undisputedly in continuity to the hostility of the plaintiff. One Title Suit being T. S. No. 494/1971 was instituted in between the plaintiff and the deceased father of the defendant namely Nekchand Agarwal, relating to the suit premises in question including another portion of the Plot No. 2473 of Mouza Mango, Jamshedpur. The matter was finally settled after disposal of the Second Appeal No. 187/79(R), whereby and whereunder the Hon'ble Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench has been pleased to direct the plaintiff to deposit the deficit court fee before the learned lower court at Jamshedpur in T.S. No. 494/1971. It is admitted fact that the Execution Case No. 84 of 1974 filed on behalf of the plaintiffs was disposed of summarily at the instance of the plaintiffs and as such the defendant's father remained in peaceful possession in the suit premises by running his shop uninterruptedly.

5. It is further alleged that prior to expiry of the period of Registered Lease Deed dated 13.08.2010, the plaintiffs entered into another unregistered lease deed dated 30.05.2014 with the defendant duly notarized on 30.05.2014 relating to the suit premises in two set and original of both the unregistered lease deed are with the plaintiffs who have given the xerox copy of the same to the defendant. Defendant making payment of monthly rent to the plaintiffs regularly as per the term and condition of the lease deed dated 30.05.2014 and he is in lawful possession in the suit premises.

6. It is further alleged that after completion of the period of said lease deed dated 13.08.2010, the plaintiffs voluntarily entered into

2025:JHHC:19185

another lease deed dated 30.05.2014 with the defendant. On perusal of clause-12 of the lease deed dated 13.08.2010, it is clear that there is provision for extension of the period of tenancy by renewing the same followed by fresh lease deed and plaintiffs entered into subsequent lease deed on 30.05.2014 with the defendant. The defendant is neither defaulter nor he has violated either the terms and conditions of the lease deeds.

7. After appreciating the evidences of both the parties, the learned trial court has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs on contest but without cost. The plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession of said suit premises from defendant. The defendant is directed to vacate the possession of said suit premises and handover the vacant possession of the same to the plaintiffs within 60 days of the order, failing which plaintiffs will be empowered to get vacated the same through process of law.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner / defendant confined himself only towards the point that the learned trial court has failed to consider the fact that after expiry of the original lease deed, the plaintiffs have renewed the lease deed for further period of three years executed through notary public, but the original copy was retained by the plaintiffs and the defendant / petitioner have filed xerox copy of the same, which was marked 'X' for identification, therefore, the impugned order suffers from non-consideration of material facts, which vitiates the judgment passed by the learned trial court.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties / plaintiffs has submitted that there is no legal substance in the aforesaid point of argument raised on behalf of the petitioner / defendant inasmuch as the document relied upon by him was never brought on record through any substantive piece of evidence, therefore, rightly discarded by the learned trial court. Therefore, there is no merit in this civil revision, which is fit to be dismissed.

2025:JHHC:19185

10. I have gone through the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in the light of rival submissions of the parties. It appears that it is admitted that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and defendant and the basis for creation of such relationship was registered agreement dated 13.08.2010 for a period of three years. The ground for eviction substantiated by the opposite parties / plaintiffs has been challenged here only on the basis of renewal of the lease through unregistered document. Surprisingly, even the original document of renewal of lease was not filed by the petitioner to substantiate his plea. In absence of any substance in the plea of the petitioner / defendant, the suit appears to have been rightly dismissed by the learned trial court.

11. In view of the aforesaid discussions and reasons, I find no valid reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree in this civil revision, which appears to be devoid of merits and hereby dismissed.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Sunil/