Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 238 (JHR)

Vinay Kumar v. Prabhakar Gautam

2019-01-23

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2019
JUDGMENT Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - The writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein order dated 09.08.2018, passed in J.B.C. Case No.42/2016 (Annexure-1), under Section 19 (1) (a) (c) (d) of Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011 by Rent Controller-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ranchi is under challenge, whereby and whereunder, the decision not to give effect of delivery of possession to respondent No. 1, Mr. Prabhakar Gautam. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that he has preferred an appeal under Section 36 of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011, but the appeal has not been decided, since the appellate authority is not holding the Court. Therefore, he although has preferred an appeal but due to reason beyond his control, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction, conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner on 14.01.2019, whereby and whereunder time was allowed to implead the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, who is the appellate authority under the statute as respondent to the instant writ petition. In pursuance thereto, interlocutory application has been filed and vide order dated 17.01.2019, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi alongwith Rent Controller-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ranchi have been directed to be impleaded as respondents to this writ petition. 4. Mr. Rajiv Anand, learned G.A.-IV for the respondent-State has accepted the copy on behalf of the newly added respondents and was directed to seek instruction. In pursuance thereto, it has been informed to this Court on 18.01.2019 that the appellate authority, due to some difficulty in holding the Court could not hear the matter and as such the matter was fixed on 13.02.2019. He has further submitted that the appellate authority has orally informed him for preponement of the date for hearing of the said Appeal No.37R15/2018-19, if such prayer is made to him. 5. This Court after hearing the parties on that date has also issued notice upon the respondent No.1 under registered as well as ordinary process and also through dasti and to file an affidavit showing the service of notice upon the respondent No.1 and posted the case for further hearing today i.e. on 23.01.2019. 6. 5. This Court after hearing the parties on that date has also issued notice upon the respondent No.1 under registered as well as ordinary process and also through dasti and to file an affidavit showing the service of notice upon the respondent No.1 and posted the case for further hearing today i.e. on 23.01.2019. 6. Supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in Court showing therein that notice has been served upon the respondent No.1 who has received by putting the signature ( Prabhakar Gautam) on 22.01.2019 the said Goswara is annexed alongwith the content and signature of the process server Mr. Vinay Kumar dated 22.01.2019. 7. None represented on behalf of the respondent No.1 in spite of accepted the service. 8. This Court is of the view since appeal has been preferred by the petitioner being Appeal No.37R15/2018-19 which is lying pending before the appellate authority and the date of hearing has been fixed on 13.02.2019 and, therefore, the prayer has been made by the petitioner for disposal of the aforesaid appeal and during its pendency, the Rent Controller-cum-subDivisional Magistrate, Ranchi may be restrained from giving effect the impugned order of the Rent Controller-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ranchi. 9. This Court, therefore, thinks it just and proper to direct the appellate authority to hear the appeal on the date fixed i.e. on 13.02.2019. 10. The petitioner will have liberty to make prayer for preponement by making an application showing the urgency. 11. The appellate authority is directed to dispose of the matter on merit in accordance with law and it is needless to mention that while deciding the appeal, the respondent No.1 shall be heard. 12. It is evident from the order dated 18.01.2019 that Mr. Rajiv Anand has submitted a communication to the Rent Controller-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ranchi not to take any coercive measure, therefore, it is proper for just decision, since the matter is pending before the appellate authority for deciding the same on its own merit, this Court thinks it proper to restrain the Rent Controller-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ranchi to act in pursuance of impugned order till 13.02.2019. 13. However, if any application would be made for preponement by the petitioner, it will be considered by the Appellate authority with liberty to the petitioner to file application for consideration of an interim order. 13. However, if any application would be made for preponement by the petitioner, it will be considered by the Appellate authority with liberty to the petitioner to file application for consideration of an interim order. Before parting, it is needless to observe that the appellate authority while adjudicating the matter will not be prejudiced by any observation made in this writ petition and the same would be decided in accordance with law. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. 15. As the main writ application is disposed of, consequently, I.A. No. 446 of 2019 also stands disposed of. 16. Since the interim order has been passed by this Court, it is expected from the appellate authority to adjudicate the appeal without any unnecessary delay.