[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Amulya Singh vs Marwari Relief Society on 15 January, 2026
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 16 of 2026
Amulya Singh, aged about 77 years, son of Raghubesh Kumar Singh
@ late Raghubansh Kumar Singh, R/o Kothi No. 22, Marwari Argora
Arogya Bhawan No. 1, Baraitu Road, P.O.-Baraitu, P.S. Baraitu,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand ... ...Defendant /Appellant/Appellant.
Versus
Marwari Relief Society, a company registered under the Indian
Companies Act, 1913, having its registered office at 2255/22
Rabindra Sarnai, P.O. Chitranjan Avenue, P.S. Rabindra Sarani,
Calcutta (Kolkata) 700073, West Bengal
...Plaintiff/ Respondent/Respondent
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate
---
07/15.01.2026 This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree
dated 23.12.2024 (decree signed on 02.01.2025) passed in Civil
Appeal No. 143 of 2020 passed by learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner-II, Ranchi, whereby the learned 1st appellate court has
upheld the judgment dated 13.03.2020 (decree sealed and singed on
21.03.2020) passed in Eviction Title Suit No. 05 of 1991 now Original
Suit No. 2343 of 2019 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division-
I, Ranchi whereby the Title Suit seeking eviction was allowed with
charges of Rs. 22,464 as well as present, future and pendentelite
charges on account of maintenance charges or electricity charges.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that though
there are concurrent findings recorded by both the courts, the appeal is
fit to be admitted for final hearing on the proposed substantial
question of law mentioned in paragraph (c) and (d) which is quoted as
under:-
(C) Whether the Judgment of the Trial Court as also
the First Appellate Court are perverse, having failed to
appreciate that the said power of attorney has not been
exhibited/proved and hence the suit of the Plaintiff being a
juristic person was not maintainable for want of valid
authority and lawful representation, thereby both the learned
Trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court have committed gross
jurisdictional error in view of Order XXIX CPC.
(d) Whether the Judgement of the learned Trial Court and the
1st appellate court are perverse for having given the finding of
default in payment of charges in favour of plaintiff without
any evidence, thereby being perverse, going to the root of the
basis of relief in the Suit?
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the suit
was filed through the alleged power of attorney holder Ram Nandan
Prasad but the power of attorney was never exhibited before the court
and therefore the suit filed at the instance of Ram Nandan Prasad was
itself not maintainable. The learned counsel submits that both the
courts have not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter. He
has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reported in (2009) 10 SCC 601 (Rishab Chand Bhandari (dead) by
LRS. And Another versus National Engineering Industry Limited
paragraph 8 and 9 which is quoted as under:-
"8. If we interpret the definition of "landlord" in the Act literally
it will result in strange consequences. It will mean that even if the
owner, who is the natural landlord, does not want to evict a tenant,
his agent may do so. Surely this is an absurd situation. It is well
settled that if a literal interpretation leads to absurd consequences,
it should be avoided and a purposive interpretation be given.
9. In the present case the respondent has not been able to show that
it was authorised in writing to act on behalf of the Trust either by a
power of attorney or any other written document. Unless there is
some documentary proof that the Trust had authorised its agent to
file a suit for eviction on its behalf, it cannot be said that the
respondent had any right to file such a suit, even though it had
actually let out the premises to the appellant and collected rent.
The respondent is admittedly not the owner of the premises, and
only claims to be the agent of the Trust."
4. He has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in (2011) 11 SCC 524 (State Bank of
Travancore versus Kingston Computers India Private Limited)
paragraph 14 which is quoted as under:-
"14. In our view, the judgment under challenge is liable to be set
aside because the respondent had not produced any evidence to
prove that Shri Ashok K. Shukla was appointed as a Director of the
Company and a resolution was passed by the Board of Directors of
the Company to file a suit against the appellant and authorised Shri
Ashok K. Shukla to do so. The letter of authority issued by Shri Raj
K. Shukla, who described himself as the Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, was nothing but a scrap of paper because no
resolution was passed by the Board of Directors delegating its
powers to Shri Raj K. Shukla to authorise another person to file a
suit on behalf of the Company."
5. The learned counsel has further submitted that decree has also
been passed with respect to the payment of Rs. 22,464 against the
alleged dues. He has further submitted that the learned courts have
failed to take into consideration the exhibits B series and also D series
while quantifying the dues. He submits that these exhibits show
payment to the electricity department and to Ranchi Municipal
Corporation.
6. Arguments concluded.
7. Order is reserved.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit
