The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI. W.P. (C) No.1549 of 2005 … Krishna Kumar Sharma … Petitioner Smt. Abha Upadhyay -V e r s u s- …
Legal Reasoning
court below is merely required to see prima facie as to relationship of landlord and tenant exist or not. It is further submitted that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant is a disputed question of fact and therefore, the said question is required to be decided in a suit, which is pending before the court below. 7. Considering the aforesaid rival submissions and more particularly, in view of the fact that the court below while passing the impugned order, has directed the petitioner-defendant to deposit the rent at the rate of Rs.500/- per month and at the same point of time, permission for withdrawal of the said amount has not been granted to the plaintiff-respondent, this Court is of the view that right of both the parties has been safeguarded by the court below and the order passed by the court below is in accordance with the provisions as contained in Section 15 of the Act and therefore, intervention of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not warranted. 8. I have perused the judgments referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties delivered in the case of Champa Lal Sharma-versus-Smt. Sumita Maitra reported in 1989 P.L.J.R. 381 and another judgment delivered in the case of Tripurendra Pandey- versus-Subhash Chandra Verma reported in 1998 (1) P.L.J.R. 114. On perusal of the order passed by the court below, it appears that the court below has carefully considered the issue with regard to the status of the petitioner-defendant and reached to the prima facie conclusion that the petitioner while filing his written statement, has categorically observed about his status as a tenant and also admitted about the payment of monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. Of course, the petitioner-defendant has raised plea with regard to status of the respondent as landlord, as according to the defendant, the respondent is not the landlord of the suit premises. But this issue, appears to be a disputed question of fact, which can be decided at the time of adjudication of the suit, which is pending before the court below. The observations made in the order with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant appears to be prima facie and tentative observation. Ultimately, the status of landlord and tenant are required to be decided by the court below, at the time of adjudication of the suit. In view of the above position, the order passed by the court below is not required to be disturbed. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner requested that some time may be granted, so as to enable the petitioner to deposit the amount of rent ordered by the court below. Accordingly, considering the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, four months' time is granted from the date of the order, so as to enable the petitioner-defendant to make arrangement to deposit the amount of rent, as ordered by the court below. 10. Ad interim order dated 05.04.2005, passed earlier stands vacated.
Arguments
CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P. BHATT. … … Respondent. For the Petitioner For the Respondent : - Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate. : - M/s. Ajit Kr. and Pranay Kr. Sinha, Advocates. … 10/01.04.2013 The petitioner by way of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 17th February, 2005 (Annexure-5) passed by the learned court of Munsif, first, Court, Dhanbad in Title (E) Suit No. 26 of 2003, whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit the rent of the tenanted premises in question at the rate of Rs.500/- per month since the institution of the said suit till January, 2005 within 15 days of the order and it has further been ordered to deposit the current rent of every month in the Court at the rate of Rs.500/- per month within 15 days of every succeeding month. The court below has also passed an order that the deposited rent shall not be withdrawn by the respondent till the disposal of the suit as after the disposal of the suit, the rightful owner of the suit shall get the deposited rent. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent. 3. 4. Perused the impugned order as well as other materials placed on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner by referring the impugned order submitted that the court below has not properly considered the contentions raised by the present petitioner in the court below with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant in the instant case. It is further submitted that it is one of the requirements, while dealing with an application under Section 15 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (in short, the Act) that the court below shall consider and form its tentative opinion regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant. In the instant case, though specifically, this point was raised before the court below, but the court below has not properly appreciated this point and thereby, passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to deposit the rent at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this submissions, has also referred to and relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Champa Lal Sharma-versus-Smt. Sumita Maitra reported in 1989 P.L.J.R. 381. 6. As against that, the learned counsel for the respondent by referring the impugned order, submitted that the court below has considered all the relevant issues and has also taken note of the written statements filed by the petitioner (defendant), whereby the petitioner has admitted his status as tenant and has agreed to pay the rent of the suit premises at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. 6. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent has also referred to and relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Tripurendra Pandey-versus-Subhash Chandra Verma reported in 1998 (1) P.L.J.R. 114. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that at the stage of deciding the application under Section 15 of the Act, the
Decision
11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. APK (P.P. Bhatt, J.)