Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 771 (JHR)

Bhola Sah v. Kanta Devi Agarwal

2018-04-05

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2018
ORDER Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - Aggrieved of order dated 15.03.2012 passed in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 52 of 2008, the defendant-tenant has approached this Court. 2. Briefly stated, in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 52 of 2008 the plaintiff filed an application under Section 15 of Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011 which was resisted by the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff is not the owner of the premises. Before the eviction suit was instituted, the defendant had instituted Title Suit No. 52 of 2006 seeking injunction against the plaintiff of the eviction suit, restraining him to demolish the suit premises and in the said proceeding the trial court has passed an order of status-quo. 3. Contending that once status of the plaintiff as landlord is under challenge an application under Section 15 of the Rent Act is not maintainable, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the defendant has erroneously been directed by the trial judge to pay monthly rent @ Rs. 1,000/- per month to the plaintiff. 4. The defendant has raised a plea that the tenanted premises is not referred to in the sale-deed dated 06.03.2006 nor it has been executed by the original owner. 5. A glance at Section 2(g) of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011 would make it apparent that the definition of landlord is expansive. It includes not only the owner, but all other persons who on their own behalf or on behalf of the owner can receive rent. Prima-facie finding a right in the plaintiff by virtue of the registered sale-deed dated 06.03.2006 in respect of Schedule-A properties, the trial judge has directed the defendant to pay monthly rent @ Rs. 1,000/- to the plaintiff. No doubt, in an eviction suit the person seeking ejection of the tenant must prima-facie establish that he falls under the definition of landlord, but it is not necessary that a landlord must be the owner of the property. 6. In the above facts, leaving the issue raised by the defendant challenging status of the plaintiff as landlord open, the writ petition is dismissed, however, it is made clear that dismissal of the writ petition shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the claim of the plaintiff being landlord of the tenanted premises.