Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 991 (JHR)

Kanhaiya Mishra v. Binod Kumar Sharma

2021-12-03

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2021
JUDGMENT : The case is taken up through Video Conferencing. 2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 30.05.2020 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-II, Seraikella in Eviction Suit No. 06/2014 whereby the said eviction suit preferred by the opposite party against the petitioner has been allowed. 3. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite party, at the outset, raises an objection with regard to the maintainability of the present revision before this Court invoking Section 14(8) of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2000 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2000’]. It is submitted that the Eviction Suit No. 06/2014 was filed by the opposite party in the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-II, Seraikella under Section 11(1)(d) of the Act, 2000 on the ground of non-payment of rent by the petitioner w.e.f. June, 2013. As per Section 14(1) of the Act, 2000, every suit by a landlord for the recovery of possession of any premises on the ground specified in clause (c) or (e) of Section 11(1) of the Act, 2000 is to be dealt with in accordance with the procedure specified in this Section. Since the said eviction suit was not filed by the opposite party invoking clause (c) or (e) of Section 11(1), rather was filed under clause (d) of Section 11(1) of the Act, 2000, the same was not tried following the special procedure provided under Section 14 of the Act, 2000 and hence the recourse as provided under proviso to Section 14(8) of the Act, 2000 for filing the revision before this Court against the order passed by the original Court will not be available. 4. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, admits that the said eviction suit was filed by the opposite party in the Court below under Section 11(1)(d) of the Act, 2000. He however submits that the present revision by way of invoking Section 14(8) of the Act, 2000 would be maintainable before this Court as the said eviction suit was filed by the opposite party under Section 11 of the Act, 2000. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the point of maintainability of the present revision before this Court. Admittedly, the said eviction suit was filed by the opposite party against the petitioner invoking Section 11(1)(d) of the Act, 2000. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the point of maintainability of the present revision before this Court. Admittedly, the said eviction suit was filed by the opposite party against the petitioner invoking Section 11(1)(d) of the Act, 2000. For better appreciation of the matter, Section 11 of the Act, 2000 is reproduced as under: “11. Eviction of tenants- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or law to the contrary but subject to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act XIV of 1947), and to those of Section 18, where a tenant is in possession of any building, he shall not be liable to eviction therefrom, except in execution of a decree passed by the Court on one or more of the following grounds,- (a) for breach of the conditions of the tenancy, or for sub-letting the building or any portion thereof without the consent of the landlord, or if he is an employee of the landlord occupying the building as an employee, on his ceasing to be in such employment; (b) where the condition of the building has materially deteriorated owing to acts of waste by, or negligence or default of the tenant or of any person residing with the tenant or for whose behaviours the tenant is responsible. (c) where the building is reasonably and in good faith required by the landlord for his own occupation or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the building is held by the landlord: Provided that where the Court thinks that the reasonable requirement of such occupation may be substantially satisfied by evicting the tenant from a part only of the building and allowing the tenant to continue occupation of the rest and the tenant agrees to such occupation, the Court shall pass a decree accordingly, and fix proportionately fair rent for the portion in occupation of the tenant, which portion shall henceforth constitute the building within the meaning of clause (b) of Section 2 and the rent so fixed shall be deemed to be the fair rent fixed under Section 5. (d) where the amount of two months rent, lawfully payable by the tenant and due from him is in arrears by not having been paid within the time fixed by contract or in the absence of such contract, by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable or by not having been validly remitted or deposited in accordance with Section 16; (e) in case of a tenant holding on a lease for a specified period, on the expiry of the period of the tenancy; and (f) the landlord requires the premises in order to carry out any building work at the instance of the Government or the Municipality of Municipal Corporation or the Notified Area Committee or the Regional Development Authority or any other Authority within whose jurisdiction the building lies and such building work cannot be properly and fully carried out without the premises being vacated.” 6. Section 11(1)(c) provides for eviction of a tenant at the instance of the landlord where the building is reasonably and in good faith is required by the landlord for his own occupation or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the building is held by the landlord. Section 11(1)(e) is to be invoked in case the tenant continues to hold the leased premises even after expiry of the period of tenancy. Distinct from the aforesaid two provisions, Section 11(1)(d) is a provision meant for eviction of a tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent. Section 14 of the Act, 2000 provides special procedure for disposal of the cases filed by the landlord only under Section 11(1)(c) or Section 11(1)(e) of the Act, 2000. Section 14 of the Act, 2000 is reproduced as under: “14. Special procedure for disposal of cases for eviction on ground of bonafide requirement- (1) Every suit by a landlord for the recovery of possession of any premises on the ground specified in clause (c) or (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure specified in this Section. (2) The Court shall issue summons in the prescribed form in every suit referred in sub-section (1) without delay. (2) The Court shall issue summons in the prescribed form in every suit referred in sub-section (1) without delay. (3)(i) The Court shall, in addition to, and simultaneously with the issue of summons for service on the tenant or tenants, also direct the summons to be served by registered post with acknowledgement due, addressed to the tenant or his agent empowered to accept the service at the place where the tenant or his agent actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain and may, if the circumstances of the case so require also direct the publication of the summons in the Official Gazette or in newspapers circulating in the locality, in which the tenant is last known to have resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain. (ii) When an acknowledgement purporting to be signed by the tenant or his agent is received back with an endorsement purporting to have been made by a postal employee to the effect that the tenant or his agent has refused to take delivery of the registered article, the Court may declare that there has been a valid service of summons. (4) The tenant on whom summons is duly served (whether by ordinary mail or by registered post) shall not contest the prayer for eviction from the premises unless he files an affidavit stating the ground on which he seeks to make such contest and obtains leave from the Court as hereinafter provided; and in default of the appearance in pursuance of the summons or his obtaining such leave the statement made by the landlord in the suit for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the landlord shall be entitled to an order for eviction on the ground aforesaid. (5) The Court shall give to the tenant leave to contest the suit if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for eviction on the grounds specified in clauses (c) and (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 11. (5) The Court shall give to the tenant leave to contest the suit if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for eviction on the grounds specified in clauses (c) and (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 11. (6) When leave is granted to the tenant to contest the suit, the latter may, within fifteen days from the date of the order, pray after filing the requisite Court-fee, required for a written statement that the affidavit may be treated as the written statement or if he chooses to file a separate written statement he may do so within fifteen days of the grant of leave to contest the suit and if he does not file the written statement within the period he shall not be allowed to do so later. The Court shall thereafter commence the hearing of the suit as early as practicable. (7) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) or any other law, the Court while hearing a suit under this Section shall follow the practice and procedure of a Court of Small Causes including the recording of evidence. (8) No appeal or second appeal shall lie against an order for the recovery of possession of any premises made in accordance with procedure specified in this Section: Provided that on an application being made within sixty days of the date of the order of eviction the High Court may for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order under the Section is according to law, call for the records of the case and pass such order in respect thereto as it thinks fit. (9) Where no application has been made to the High Court in revision as laid disown in sub-section (8) above, the Court, which passed the order for eviction may exercise the powers of review in accordance with the provision of Order XLVII of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908): Provided that no such review shall be made unless an application is filed for the same within ninety days of the date of order of eviction.” 7. No such special procedure has been provided for any other eventualities mentioned in different clauses of Section 11(1), except clauses (c) & (e). No such special procedure has been provided for any other eventualities mentioned in different clauses of Section 11(1), except clauses (c) & (e). Since filing of the revision before the High Court invoking Section 14(8) is the part of Section 14 which provides for special procedure for disposal of the cases for eviction filed only under Section 11(1)(c) or 11(1)(e) of the Act, 2000, an order passed in eviction suit on a petition preferred by the landlord under Section 11(1)(d) cannot be entertained by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction under proviso to Section 14(8). Admittedly, the said eviction suit was preferred by the opposite party before the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-II, Seraikella under Section 11(1)(d) of the Act, 2000 against the petitioner on the ground of default in making payment of rent and as such the provisions of Section 14 much less Section 14(8) of the Act, 2000 would not be attracted in the present case. Hence, the present revision preferred by the petitioner invoking Section 14(8) of the Act, 2000 is not maintainable before this Court and the same is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner is however at liberty to work out his remedy as provided under law.