Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 625 (JHR)

Md. Muslim Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

2021-08-12

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2021
ORDER : 1. This case is taken up through video conferencing. 2. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects, as pointed out by the office, is ignored. 3. The petitioner, who is tenant of the premises in question (shop), has filed the present writ petition for quashing the order dated 5th July, 2019 passed by the House Rent Controller-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ranchi-respondent no. 4 in J.B.C. Case no. 114 of 2016, whereby the said case filed by Brigadier Ravi Kumar-respondent no. 5 (landlord of the premises in question) under Section 19(1)(e) of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act 2011’) has been allowed, directing the petitioner to hand over the possession of the premises in question to the respondent no. 5 within a fortnight. Further challenge has been made to the order dated 5th March, 2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (Appellate authority) respondent no. 3 in J.B.C. Appeal No. 7 R15 of 2019-20, whereby the order passed by the respondent no. 4 has been upheld. 4. Mr. A. Allam, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that main reason for filing the present writ petition is that though the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the appellate authority in the court of Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi (revisional authority) respondent no. 2, which has been registered as J.B.C. Revision Case No. 15 of 2021, yet during pendency of the same, the respondent no. 4 on an application filed by the respondent no. 5, being M.P. No. 13 of 2019, for execution of the order dated 5th July, 2019 is taking steps for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question. It is further submitted that the next date in the said revision case is 16th August, 2021. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the contents of the writ petition. Though the petitioner has averred in the writ petition that being aggrieved with the order dated 5th March, 2021 passed by the respondent no. 3, he moved in revision before the respondent no. 2 under Section 37 of the Act, 2011, which has been registered as J.B.C. Revision Case No. 15 of 2021, yet no statement has been made as to whether he has made any application seeking interim relief before the revisional authority. 3, he moved in revision before the respondent no. 2 under Section 37 of the Act, 2011, which has been registered as J.B.C. Revision Case No. 15 of 2021, yet no statement has been made as to whether he has made any application seeking interim relief before the revisional authority. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. The petitioner is, however, given liberty to prefer an application for interim relief before the revisional authority i.e. respondent no. 2 in J.B.C. Revision Case No. 15 of 2021. 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall file an application today itself for interim relief in the pending revision case before the respondent no. 2. 7. If the petitioner prefers the said application today, the respondent no. 2 is directed to take up the same on the next date fixed in the said revision i.e. on 16th August, 2021 and to pass an appropriate order on the said date itself. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid liberty and direction.