Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 949 (JHR)

Sita Devi Khirwal v. Madanlal Agarwal

2010-09-29

R.K.MERATHIA

body2010
JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Both these writ petitions involving similar questions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. It may be noted that Inspite of service of notice, the sole Respondent has not appeared in WPC No. 610 of 2009. 3. W.P.C. No. 610 of 2009 arises out of order dated 7.3.2008, passed In B.B.R.C. Case No. 1 of 2000 and W.P.C. No. 638 of 2009 arises out of the order dated 11.4.2008, passed in B.B.R.C. Case No. 4 of 2000. 4. Both these cases were filed by the Petitioners before the House Rent Controller-cum-Sub-divisional Officer, Chaibasa as the landlords, for fixation of fair rent. The said cases were dismissed inter alia on the ground that Petitioners themselves were not the khasmahal lessees. On appeal, the matter was remanded. The said impugned orders have been passed alter remand. By the impugned orders, fair rent fixation cases have been dropped only on the ground that Petitioners have rented out/sub-leased the premises in favour of the Respondents in both the cases, without taking permission from the Deputy Commissioner required under the Khasmahal Manual. 5. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned Counsel for the Petitioners in both cases, submitted that Petitioners filed eviction suits against the Respondents in both the cases, which were decreed inter alia holding that Petitioners are the landlords within the meaning of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction, Control Act after considering all relevant aspects of the matter including that Saligram Khirwal was receiving rent after a family arrangement between him and his brother-Shyamal Kumar Khirwal, under which the leasehold right was transferred in favour of Saligram Khirwal-predecessor in interest of the Petitioners. He further submitted that even the Circular dated 4.9.1981, regarding renewal of Khasmahal lease stipulates that if a lease is given for residential purpose has been rented out for residential purposes, the same would not be treated as violation of the terms of the lease. 6. On the other hand, Mrs. Pal supporting the impugned order, submitted that the lessee was Shyamal Kumar Khirwal, brother of Saligram Khirwal-the predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioners and therefore Petitioners cannot take help of Circular dated 4.9.1981, which is only applicable to the lessees. She further submitted that appeal against the said judgment and decree passed in eviction suit is pending. On the other hand, Mrs. Pal supporting the impugned order, submitted that the lessee was Shyamal Kumar Khirwal, brother of Saligram Khirwal-the predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioners and therefore Petitioners cannot take help of Circular dated 4.9.1981, which is only applicable to the lessees. She further submitted that appeal against the said judgment and decree passed in eviction suit is pending. She further submitted that during pendency of these writ petitions on 15.9.2010, recommendation has been made in favour of the Respondent in WPC No. 610 of 2009, to grant Khasmahal lease by L.R.D.C. 7. I have heard the parties at length and perused the records including the said judgment dated 28.5.2009, passed by the trial court in eviction suits filed by the Petitioners against the Respondents being Eviction Suit No. 14 of 2005 and the judgment and decree dated 4th September, 2009, passed In Eviction suit No. 1 of 2009. 8. It cannot be disputed that if a person comes within the definition of landlord under BBC Act, he cannot pursue a suit for eviction as well as a proceeding for fixation of fair rent before the House Rent Controller. From the said judgments, prima facie, it appears that findings have been recorded by the trial court that Saligram Khirwal (the predecessor-in-Interest of the Petitioners) was the landlord, though such findings are subject to decision in the pending appeal. But as on today, the findings of the Civil Court are to be respected by all concerned including the House Rent Controller. Parties will be at liberty to place their respective cases before the House Rent Controller. 9. In the result, the impugned orders are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the House Rent Controller, Chaibasa. The parties are directed to appear before him at 11 A.M. on 27th October, 2010. The House Rent Controller will pass speaking orders in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, as early as possible and preferably within three months from such appearance. The parties are directed to cooperate in early disposal of the cases. If any party does not cooperate, or does not appear, the House Rent Controller may pass ex parte orders. 10. With these observations and directions, these writ petitions are disposed of.