Jharkhand High Court
Santosh Kumar Nagelia vs Meera Rani Dutta on 30 October, 2025
2025:JHHC:32823
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Civil Revision No. 35 of 2018
1. Santosh Kumar Nagelia, son of Late Surendra Kumar Nagelia,
aged about 40 years.
2. Suraj Kumar Nagelia, son of Late Surendra Kumar Nagelia, aged
about 29 years.
3. Kaushalya Nagelia, wife of Late Surendra Kumar Nagelia, aged
about 50 years.
All residents of Line No. 15, Bistupur Market, P.O. & P.S. -
Bistupur, Town - Jamshedpur, District - Singhbhum East
(Jharkhand).
..... Defendants / Petitioners
Versus
1. Meera Rani Dutta, wife of Late Upendra Mohan Dutta.
2. Alpana Mazumder, daughter of Late Upendra Mohan Dutta, wife
of Late Bishnu Mazumder.
3. Anima Ghosh, daughter of Late Upendra Mohan Dutta, wife of Sri
Manik Ghosh.
All resident of 96, New Ranikundar, P.O. & P.S. - Kadma,
Town Jamshedpur, District - East Singhbhum (Jharkhand).
..... Plaintiffs / Opp. Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate.
Mr. Nagendra Pathak, Advocate.
Mr. Nandan Prasad, Advocate.
---------
Order No. 32 / Dated : 30th October, 2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned
counsel for the opposite parties.
2. The present civil revision is directed against the judgment
dated 16.02.2018 (decree signed on 24.02.2018) passed by learned
Civil Judge (Senior Division)-VI, Jamshedpur in Original Suit No.
76 of 1993, whereby and whereunder the suit of the plaintiffs /
2025:JHHC:32823
Opposite Parties has been decreed and defendants / petitioners have
been directed to hand over vacant possession of the shop premises
to the opposite parties within a period of two months from the date
of judgment, failing which the plaintiffs / opposite parties are at
liberty to evict the defendants / petitioners through process of the
Court.
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the
plaintiffs / opposite parties have instituted a suit for eviction under
Section 11 (i)(C) read with Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings
(Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act in the court of learned Munsif
at Jamshedpur, being Eviction Suit No. 76 of 1993, praying therein
for the following reliefs:-
(i) A decree for recovery of possession of the suit premises
described in the Schedule to the plaint evicting the defendants
therefrom;
(ii) A decree for cost of the suit; and
(iii) A decree for any other relief or reliefs to which the
plaintiffs may be found entitled under the law and equity.
4. According to the case of plaintiffs the suit land i.e. Shop was
given on rent of Rs. 100/- as a monthly rent by the husband of the
plaintiff no. 1 namely, Upendra Mohan Dutta to the defendant /
2025:JHHC:32823
petitioner and after death of Upendra Mohan Dutta, the plaintiffs
inherited the shop premises and since plaintiff no. 2 is unemployed,
as such, the premises was bonafide required for business for their
livelihood. It is further alleged that notice through Advocate was
sent to defendants for handing over the possession of the shop on
04.11.1992, but the defendant / petitioner failed to do so, hence, the
suit has been preferred.
5. The defendants / petitioners on being noticed appeared and
filed their written statement on 26.02.1994, stating, inter alia that
the plaintiffs have no cause of action or right to sue against
defendants. The suit is not maintainable in its present form for the
reliefs as claimed by the plaintiffs. The suit is barred for non-joinder
and mis-joinder of parties. The suit does not come within the
purview of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act,
1982 and therefore, the suit ought to have been dismissed.
6. The learned trial court on the basis of pleadings of the parties
has settled following issues for adjudication:-
(i) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is maintainable on
facts and law?
(ii) Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant
between the plaintiffs and defendants?
2025:JHHC:32823
(iii) Whether the plaintiffs are owner of the suit shop?
(iv) Whether the suit is under-valued and this Court has
jurisdiction to hear the suit?
(v) Are the plaintiffs required suit premises for their
reasonable and bonafide use and occupation in connection
with business and entitled to evict the defendants from the
suit shop?
(vi) Whether the partial eviction from the suit shop will
fulfill the necessity of the plaintiffs?
(vii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to evict the
defendants on the basis of better ownership to the suit
property?
(ix) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any other reliefs?
7. In support of respective case, both parties have adduced oral
as well as documentary evidence. The learned trial court after
considering the overall evidence available on record recorded the
finding that the defendants are tenant of plaintiffs. It was also
observed by learned trial court that the real ownership of the suit
premises belonged to M/s Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd., which
was allotted to the plaintiffs and not to the defendants, as such,
defendants can't get any right on account of any sell agreement
2025:JHHC:32823
dated 12.01.1977 (Exhibit-A). The learned trial court also placed
reliance upon the principles laid down in the case of Sri Ram
Pasricha Vs. Jagannath & Others reported in AIR 1976 SC page
2335, wherein it has been held that only the landlord can terminate
the tenancy and institute the suit for eviction. The tenant in such a
suit is estopped from questioning the title of the landlord under
Section 116 of the Evidence Act. The tenant cannot deny that the
landlord had title to the premises at the commencement of the
tenancy under the general law, in a suit between landlord and tenant
the question of title to the leased property is irrelevant. Accordingly,
the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the suit
premises is a built-up shop premises of M/s Tata Iron and Steel
Company Limited, which was allotted to one Upendra Mohan
Dutta vide Letter of Allotment No. TA/3826 dated 07.03.1955 on
condition to pay a security money of Rs. 60/- and rent @ Rs. 20/-
per month with other conditions.
9. It is further submitted that in the month of June, 1972, the
said allottee Upendra Mohan Dutta took advance of Rs. 5,000/-
from the defendant and parted with the possession of suit premises
with condition to re-pay the above loan amount along with interest
@ 7% per annum and since then, the petitioners are running their
2025:JHHC:32823
business over the suit premises. Thereafter, Upendra Mohan Dutta
became absolutely incapable to pay the interest amount, therefore,
he executed an agreement to sell out the suit premises dated
12.01.1977 in favour of defendants. It is further submitted that the
original sole defendant Surendra Kumar Nagelia died and his wife
was substituted as present defendant and contested the suit.
10. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has failed to
take into consideration the materials placed by the petitioners in
support of their claim. The learned trial court failed to consider that
the original allotment in favour of the Upendra Mohan Dutta was
issued by M/s Tata Steel Limited under condition that the lessee
cannot sub-lease the suit premises, therefore, M/s Tata Iron & Steel
Company Ltd. is also a necessary party for deciding the suit and
plaintiff himself had no locus standi to institute the suit for the
reliefs as claimed. In the factual background only M/s Tata Iron &
Steel Company Ltd. is entitled to take possession of the suit
premises. The learned trial court has also failed to properly consider
the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the defendants
/ petitioners and arrived at absolutely illegal conclusion while
decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs / opposite
parties has submitted that the learned trial court has very wisely and
2025:JHHC:32823
aptly examined the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced
by the parties and rightly held that the plaintiffs are landlord of the
suit premises and defendants are tenants. Exhibit-A i.e. Sale deed
produced by the defendants is not a valid and admissible document.
The learned trial court has also rightly recorded the finding that the
tenant can't go behind the ownership and title of the leasehold
property and estopped under statute to raise such objection.
12. It is further contended that during pendency of the instant
revision, the suit shop premises has been delivered to the landlord /
plaintiffs through the process of court and now no article of tenant
is lying in the shop premises.
13. Learned counsel has also filed possession receipt issued
under the signature and seal of the Nazir, Civil Court, Jamshedpur
in Execution Case No. 125 of 2018 dated 01.05.2023. Therefore,
there remains nothing to be restored to the petitioners / defendants
and this revision has become infructuous and liable to be dismissed.
14. I have given anxious consideration to the rival contentions
raised on behalf of the both parties. The main argument of learned
counsel for the petitioners hinges the question of locus standi to
institute the suit. As per the petitioners, the owner-cum-landlord is
M/s Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. and the predecessor of
2025:JHHC:32823
plaintiffs was an allottee of the suit shop through Allotment Letter
No. TA/3826 dated 07.03.1955. As per terms and conditions of the
said allotment, the allottee can't sub-let the suit premises to any
person, therefore, the very sub-letting of the suit premises to the
defendant / petitioners was a void agreement, therefore, the
defendants are not entitled to recover back the possession of the suit
shop from the plaintiffs.
15. The above plea taken by the petitioner does not appear to be
justified under law. It is settled principle of law that a person
inducted as a tenant over the suit premises is estopped from denying
the ownership / right of the landlord to let out the leasehold
premises. It is admitted case of the defendants that he got
possession of the suit property from original allottee Upendra
Mohan Dutta, therefore, the defendants have no independent right
over the suit land except as inducting them as a tenant over the suit
shop. A tenant is always a tenant unless otherwise is proved.
Therefore, the defendants can't raise such type of plea against the
locus standi of the plaintiffs to institute the suit.
16. It also appears that during pendency of the revision,
Execution Case No. 125 of 2018 was filed by the plaintiffs to get
the fruits of their decree, which has also been allowed and the
defendants / petitioners have been evicted from the suit premises.
2025:JHHC:32823
17. In this view of the matter also there remains nothing to be
decided challenging the impugned judgment and decree.
18. For the discussion and reasons, I find no merit in this Civil
Revision, which stand dismissed.
19. Pending I.A, if any stands disposed of.
20. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court concerned.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Sunil/
