Jharkhand High Court
Nago Rajak vs Smt Pushpa Jain on 6 November, 2012
Author: P.P.Bhatt
Bench: P.P. Bhatt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI.
W.P(C) No. 3348 of 2012
Nago Rajak . .............................................. Petitioner(s)
Versus
Smt Pushpa Jain .........................................Respondent(s)
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P. BHATT
For the Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Samir Kumar Lall Advocate
For the Respondent :- Mr.D.K Karmakar. Advocate
3-6.11.2012 The petitioner by way of filing this present petition under 227 of the Constitution of India has prayed for quashing the order dated 26.4.2012 as contained in Annexure- of the writ petition passed by the learned Civil Judge(Jr. Division)-I Jamshedpur in Eviction suit No. 51 of 2008 whereby the learned court below has allowed the petition filed by the plaintiff/respondent under section 15 of B.B.C Act and directed the petitioner-defendant to deposit the rent for nine months from December, 2007 to August 2008 at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month amounting to Rs. 2700/- as well as for payment of current rent from, the month of Seoptember, 2008 to March 2012( i.e. till the month prior to this order) i.e. for 55 months at t6he rate of Rs. 300/- per month amounting to Rs.16,500/- i.e. total amount of Rs. 19,200/- to be deposted in the court below within 15 days of this order.
The learned court below further directed to the petitioner- defendant to deposit future rent for the month of April, 2012 on wards in court by 15th of each next following month onwards regularly, till disposal of this suit.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the court below has committed a grave error in passing the impugned order as it was passed without considering the fact that actual tenant of the suit premises is Sunita Devi who is the wife of the defendant/petitioner. It is further submitted that the impugned order is required to be set aside for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though specific contention raised before the court below but the court below failed to appreciate the said contention and thereby committed an error while passing the impugned order without impleading the said Sunita Devi as one of the party in the proceeding though she was necessary and proper party in the proceeding.
As against that, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the judgment passed by the learned court below and submitted that the court below has taken into consideration the relevant materials and documents on record and thereafter passed an order against the petitioner-defendant. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent pointed out from the documents annexed with counter affidavit filed by the respondent that an agreement was executed between the original owner and present petitioner. In this context the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has invited the attention of this court to annexure -C i.e. agreement for monthly tenancy for 11 months executed between Satish Rajak and Nago Rajak.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that that the said property was also purchased by the respondent . on 27 Nov.2007 and in respect thereof the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has invited the attention of this Court to the Annexure-A i.e. sale deed executed between the respondent and original owner in respect of the suit property. The learned counsel for the respondent while referring annexure B to the counter affidavit pointed out that legal notice was sent to the present petitioner after purchase of the property in question. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has also invited the attention of this court to Annexure-D and pointed out that the deposition was given by the respondent wherein she has specifically stated that sale deed was executed on 27.11.2012 and thereafter intimation was also given to the tenant in this regard. and the said fact was also narrated in para 4 of the deposition. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent further submitted by referring Annexure-E that earlier owner was also examined in Eviction suit No. 51 of 2008 and in his deposition earlier owner has also admitted the fact that the premises in question was given on rent to Sri Nago Rajak and the agreement executed by them dated 30.7. 1999 was also referred by the previous owner of the premises in para-4 of the deposition. The fact regarding execution of the sale deed between the respondent and previous owner is also narrated by the said witnesses.
The learned counsel for the respondent by referring the averments made in the counter affidavit as well as by referring the document annexed to the counter affidavit pointed out that the court below after careful consideration of the materials on record passed an order against the present petitioner and directed him to deposit the arrear and as well as current rent and also future rent .It is further submitted that the court below has passed an order in accordance with section 15 of the BBC Act and thereby not committed any irregularity or illegality while passing the said order and therefore, the present petition may be rejected .
Considering the aforesaid rival submission and on perusal of the impugned order it appears that the court below has passed an order under section 15 of BBC Act against the present petitioner directing him to deposit the rent for nine months from December, 2007 to August 2008 at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month amounting to Rs. 2700/- as well as for payment of current rent from, the month of Seoptember, 2008 to March 2012( i.e. till the month prior to this order) i.e. for 55 months at t6he rate of Rs. 300/- per month amounting to Rs.16,500/- i.e. total amount of Rs. 19,200/- to be deposited in the court below within 15 days of this order. The court below while passing the impugned has taken into consideration the relevant documents. It also transpires from the impugned order as well as document annexed with the counter affidavit that respondent has purchased the suit property from the original owner by executing registered sale deed which is produced vide annexure-A to the counter affidavit.
The arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that impugned order suffers from mis joinder and non joinder of the parties cannot be accepted in view fact that agreement was also executed between the original owner as well as the present petitioner and the said fact reveals from Annexure-C. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that agreement which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent is forged and fabricated. However, the learned court below without appreciating this fact has passed the impugned order. This argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the documentary as well as oral evidence on record. It appears that the said fact is also admitted by the original owner as well as respondent herein in deposition given before the court below in Eviction suit no. 51 of 2008. On perusal of the impugned order it appears that the court below after careful consideration of the evidence on record directed the petitioner to make payment of arrears as well as current rent. This court is of the view that the court below has not committed any error while passing the said order and the said order was passed in consonance with the provision of Section 15 of the BBCAct and therefore, intervention of this court is not warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as the court below has not committed any error while exercising the jurisdiction vested with it. Accordingly this petition stands rejected (P.P.Bhatt,J) SD