Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 138 (JHR)

Arun Kumar Gupta v. Santu Lal

2015-02-02

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
Order Aggrieved by order dated 17.09.2014, the petitioner/defendant has preferred the present writ petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, Eviction Suit No. 4 of 2012 was filed on 07.03.2012. The defendant appeared and filed his written statement raising a plea of jurisdiction stating that on 09.02.2012 a new Act namely, Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 has been published in the Official Gazette and therefore, the Eviction Suit No. 04 of 2012 which was filed on 07.03.2012 should not have been entertained by the learned Civil Court. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though, the relationship of landlord tenant between the parties is not disputed however, once a plea of jurisdiction has been taken in the written statement, the learned trial court should have adjudicated the said issue first and therefore, order dated 17.09.2014 is liable to be set-aside. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. From the impugned order dated 17.09.2014, it appears that the plaintiff preferred application dated 06.12.2013 under Section 15 of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000 however, the defendant did not filed any reply to the same. On previous occasions, the defendant was directed to remain present in the court however, he did comply with the order of the court. Subsequently, opportunity to file rejoinder was closed. No further application seeking permission to file rejoinder has been filed by the defendant. Section 15 of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000 is quoted below : 15. Subsequently, opportunity to file rejoinder was closed. No further application seeking permission to file rejoinder has been filed by the defendant. Section 15 of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000 is quoted below : 15. Deposit of rent by tenants in suits for ejectment: (1) If, in a suit for recovery of possession of any building the tenant contest the suit as regards claim for ejectment, landlord may move an application at any stage of the suit for order on the tenant to deposit rent month by month at a rate at which it was last paid and also subject to the law of limitation, the arrears of rent, if any, and the Court after giving opportunity to the parties to be heard, may make any order for deposit of rent month by month at such rate as may be determined and the arrears of rent, both before [or] after the institution of the suit if any and on failure of the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent within fifteen days of the date of order or the rent at such rate for any month by the fifteenth day of the next following month; the Court shall order the defence against ejectment to be struck-off and the tenant to be placed in the same position as if he had not defended the claim to ejectment and further the Court shall not allow the tenant to cross-examine the landlord's witnesses. (2) If in any proceeding referred to in such section (1) there is any dispute as to the person or persons to whom the rent is payable the Court may direct the tenant to deposit in Court the amount payable by him under Sub-Section (1) and in such case no person shall be entitled to withdraw the amount in deposit until the Court decides the dispute and makes an order for payment of the same. (3) If the Court is satisfied that any dispute referred to in subsection (2) has been raised by a tenant for reasons which are false or frivolous the Court may order the defence against the eviction to be struck-off and proceed with the hearing of the suit as laid down in subsection (1). 6. It is thus, apparent that since relationship of landlord-tenant is not disputed by the defendant, order dated 17.09.2014 does not suffer from any infirmity. 7. 6. It is thus, apparent that since relationship of landlord-tenant is not disputed by the defendant, order dated 17.09.2014 does not suffer from any infirmity. 7. In so far as, the plea of jurisdiction that it should have been decided by the trial court first, I am of the opinion that the plea of jurisdiction as to the maintainability of the suit is required to be raised by filing separate application or if an issue of maintainability has been framed, the said issue may be 4decided by the court first. In the present case, no application questioning the jurisdiction has been filed and therefore, impugned order dated 17.09.2014 cannot be challenged by the petitioner at this stage, on the ground that civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Eviction Suit No. 04/2012. 8. I find no infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.