Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 492 (JHR)

Basant Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2016-03-17

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2016
ORDER : Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Private respondent instituted a J.B.C. Case No. 32/2015 in the Court of learned Sub Divisional Magistrate – cum – Rent Controller, Sadar, Ranchi for eviction of the petitioner from the tenanted premises situate at 1st Floor at Kavee Complex building being the portion of Municipal Holding No. 670 and 671 under Ward No. 14, Main Road, P.S. Lower Bazar District Ranchi. The landlord has taken a plea of bonafide personal necessity, default in payment of rent for a period of two months and also expiry of the period of lease. It also allege breach of terms of tenancy. 2. Defendant/petitioner herein appeared on notice and contested the case by filing a written statement inter-alia taking the plea that no cause of action arises and the suit as framed, is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Other grounds on merits have also been taken in his written statement. The learned Rent Controller passed an order of eviction dated 20.07.2015 (Annexure-3) which was taken in appeal before the Court of Deputy Commission, Ranchi being J.B.C. Appeal No. 21 R 15/2015-16 by the petitioner herein. Learned Deputy Commissioner set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Sub Divisional Magistrate -Rent Controller, Sadar, Ranchi for passing a fresh order on the basis of the evidence adduced by both the parties by order dated 23.09.2015 (Annexure-4). On remand, the learned Rent Controller was requested by the defendant/petitioner herein to frame issues for adjudication which has been declined by the impugned order dated dated 23.10.2015 (Annexure-6). Learned Rent Controller has taken the plea that in terms of section 21(7) of Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011, proceedings are required to be taken in the manner of a summary proceeding and it shall follow the practice and procedure of a Court of small causes including the recording of evidence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grounds urged on the part of the landlord/respondent herein, do not fall only in the category of Clause-c or e of sub section 1 of Section 19 of Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011 which prescribes special procedure for disposal of cases as prescribed under section 21 of the Act of 2011. The suit is being contested on merits on other grounds also raised by the landlord under section 19, as referred to hereinabove. Therefore, opinion of the learned Rent Controller not to frame issues, is not a correct approach for deciding the lis which involves valuable rights of the petitioner arising out of the tenancy agreement. It is submitted that even in a quasi judicial tribunal like the Industrial Tribunal which are not bound by the strict rules of Civil Procedure Code or the Evidence Act, issues are ordinarily framed in order to address the contentious questions involved in the lis to be answered while finally adjudicating the matter. Reference has been made to the judgment rendered by the Patna High Court (Ranchi Bench) in Civil Revision No. 406/1983 (R) dated 17.02.1984 (Reyazul Haque vs. Mosst. Maimum Khatoon and another). It is submitted that when the grounds of challenge are not limited to the bonafide personal necessity or expiry of the period of lease, then the suit for eviction containing other grounds, should be conducted in accordance with law in ordinary procedure prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent landlord, at the outset, submits that the respondent does not object to framing of issues for fair and proper adjudication of the case. However, on that pretext, petitioner should not be allowed to linger the matter. It is submitted that the learned Court of Rent Controller may be directed, with the consent of the parties, to frame issues and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 5. Having considered the rival pleas of the parties in the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, this Court is also of the opinion that Rent Controller is not precluded from framing issues considering the nature of the lis involving grounds of eviction as prescribed under section 19 of the Act of 2011 which do not fall within the category of grounds alone described for special procedure prescribed under section 21 of the Act of 2011. For effective adjudication of the lis therefore, learned Rent Controller should not be inhibited in framing issues which narrow down the area of dispute and contention between the parties to be adjudicated on the basis of rival pleas of the parties and material evidence adduced on their behalf. For effective adjudication of the lis therefore, learned Rent Controller should not be inhibited in framing issues which narrow down the area of dispute and contention between the parties to be adjudicated on the basis of rival pleas of the parties and material evidence adduced on their behalf. This view of the learned Rent Controller therefore, does not appeal to reason or conform to the requirement of fair adjudication also. Since the parties have also consented for framing of issues, learned Court of Rent Controller should proceed with the matter after framing issues in accordance with law. The impugned order is interfered. Accordingly. It is quashed. Writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid manner. I.A. No. 194/2016 also stands disposed of.