Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 287 (JHR)

Suman Samanta v. Urmila Devi

2016-02-08

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2016
Order : Aggrieved by order dated 10.07.2014 in Eviction Suit No. 01 of 2004 whereby, the application under Section 15 of Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000 has been dismissed, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents on record. 3. Mr. A.K. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 15 of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000 the Court can make an order for payment of fair rent fixed by the House Rent Controller during the pendency of the Eviction Suit. Referring to decision in “Sashadhar Das Vs. Harihar Prasad and Others” 1974 BLJR 531 and the decision in “Sobrati Rangrej Vs. Ganga Prasad” 1960 BLJR 661, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fair rent fixed by the Controller would prevail over the rent fixed by agreement and therefore, the Court can direct the tenant to deposit the fair rent fixed by the Controller. 4. Eviction Suit No. 01 of 2004 was filed for ejection of one Ramavtar Sharma on the ground of default in payment of rent and the bonafide requirement of the plaintiff. The respondent was substituted as the legal heir of the defendant who died during the pendency of the Eviction Suit. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant was inducted as tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 1800/for which a rent note was executed on 28.02.1997. The defendant paid rent for the month of February, 2003 at the rate of Rs. 2450/and thus, the defendant defaulted in payment of rent from March, 2003 to July, 2003. The suit was instituted on 25.08.2003. The defendant resisted the suit pleading that it is barred under Section 10 C.P.C. on the ground that Partition Suit No. 22 of 1999 has been filed by the brothers of the plaintiff in which the parties to Eviction Suit No. 01 of 2004 are defendants. The defendant denied that plaintiff is the owner of the premises comprised in Hoding No. 322, Ward No. 2 (Old) within Giridih Municipality which is the suit schedule property in the Eviction Suit. The defendant further denied that he was inducted by the plaintiff as a tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 1800/and a rent note dated 28.02.1997 was executed and signed by him. The defendant further denied that he was inducted by the plaintiff as a tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 1800/and a rent note dated 28.02.1997 was executed and signed by him. It appears that the plaintiff filed an application before the House Rent Controller, Giridih which was registered as Case No. 01 of 2012. A copy of order dated 09.03.2013 passed by the House Rent Controller, brought on record by the petitioner, discloses that fair rent has been fixed at Rs. 10,000/. Subsequently, on 04.04.2014 the petitioner filed the application under Section 15 of the Jharkhand (Building, Lease, Rent and Control) Act, 2000 for a direction upon the defendant to pay monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month from March, 2013. The said application was resisted by the defendant on the ground that the last rent paid was Rs. 2500/- per month and though the defendant has been remitting the rent at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per month through postal money-order, the plaintiff has refused to accept the same. It was further pleaded that the defendant has challenged order dated 09.03.2013 in Case No. 01 of 2012 in Appeal No. 03 of 2013 and 04 of 2013. In “Sashadhar Das” (supra), the fair rent was fixed on a date prior to the institution of the suit and, the effect of pendency of the appeal filed against the order of the House Rent Controller fixing fair rent was not an issue before the Court. The decision in “Sobrati Rangrej” (supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts. In “Dr. Sachidanand Sinha Vs. The Collector, Patna and Others” 1974 B.L.J.R 531, the issue before the Court was whether the Appellate Authority or the Revisional Authority can make an order on the tenant to deposit the fair rent fixed by the Controller. As noticed above, the facts in the present case are entirely different. The defendant has preferred appeal against the order of fixation of fair rent by the Controller. Consequently, it follows that the decision of the Trial Judge does not warrant interference. 5. I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.