Jharkhand High Court
Suresh Khan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 November, 2018
Author: Shree Chandrashekhar
Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 1845 of 2018
-------
Suresh Khan, aged about 80 years, Son of Jena Khan, Resident of Qr. No. 8, Sidhgora, P.O. and P.S.-Sidhgora, Town - Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum.
... Petitioner/Defendant.
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Town- Jamshedpur, P.O.+P.S. and District-East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur.
3. The Tata Steel Limited, Jamshedpur, Registered Office at Bombay House 24, Homi Mody Street Mumbai-400 001.
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhalbhum, P.O.+P.S.-Dhalbhum, Town-Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum.
... Respondents/Plaintiffs.
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
-------
For Petitioner : Mr. Tejo Mistry, Advocate
For Respondent-State : Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey, A.C to S.C (L&C)
------
05/19.11.2018 The petitioner, who is the defendant in Eviction Suit
No. 43 of 2010, is aggrieved of order dated 20.01.2018 by which his application for a direction upon the plaintiff-Tata Steel Limited to produce a copy of the letter dated 04.07.2009 has been rejected.
2. Eviction Suit No. 43 of 2010 has been instituted for a decree for recovery of khas possession of the suit premises after evicting the defendant from the said property. The plaintiff has claimed that it is the owner of Quarter No. L4/8 Road No. 8, Sidhgora, P.S-Sidhgora within the town of Jamshedpur in district-Singhbhum (East). This is the suit schedule property. This property was allotted to the defendant on monthly tenancy on temporary basis, initially for a period of 11 months on payment of monthly rent at the rate of Rs.57.93. At the time of allotment a house permit was prepared on 29.03.2005, in duplicate, the original thereof was handed over to the defendant. The plaintiff has asserted that the defendant has defaulted in 2 payment of rent from the month of April, 2008 and therefore liable to be evicted under Section 11(1)(c)(d)(e) of Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000. The defendant has contested the suit on various grounds; one of the grounds raised by the defendant is that the suit premises was allotted to him in terms of the negotiation arrived at between the parties in Title Suit No. 208 of 1991. Stand taken by defendant is that sometime in the year 1990 the plaintiff tried to dispossess him and others from Tom Basti and a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C was initiated. The matter went to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and finally the plaintiff-company was directed not to disturb the defendant's possession without taking recourse to the due process of law and the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum was appointed receiver by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In paragraph no. 11 of the written statement, the defendant has pleaded that in terms of the compromise between the parties the plaintiff agreed to provide 2000 Sq. ft. land with single storey building constructed thereon to the defendant either at Sidhgora or in Agrico area, if the defendant agrees to vacate the property involved in Title Suit No. 208 of 1991. Further stand taken by the defendant is that in pursuance of the aforesaid agreement the plaintiff-company has provided accommodation at Quarter No. 4L/8 situated at Road No. 8, Sidhgora.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that not only the plaintiff's witness namely, A.K. Ojha who has been examined as P.W. 1 has spoken about a written agreement between the parties, letter dated 04.07.2009 which also refers to the settlement arrived at between the parties would be necessary to adjudicate the real dispute involved in the suit.
4. Tenancy between the parties is not in dispute. It is the case pleaded by the plaintiff that the defendant intends to grab the company's property whereas the defendant has taken the stand that the plaintiff was forcibly trying to evict him along with other villagers from the Basti. Letter dated 04.07.2009, a copy of which has been filed by the petitioner, has not been specifically mentioned by the defendant in his written statement, though 3 there is a reference of the settlement arrived at between the parties in various paragraphs in the written statement. Under the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure, a defendant is required to produce the document under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC on which his defence is founded. Order XIII Rule 1 CPC mandates that before issues in the suit are settled the parties shall produce the original documents. Before that, under Order XI CPC the parties are permitted to exchange interrogatories. Admittedly, the petitioner did not issue notice to the plaintiff for producing a copy of letter dated 04.07.2009. It is well-settled that parties to a suit must stand on their own legs and it is the primary responsibility of the party taking a specific stand to prove his stand by leading evidence oral as well as documentary. In the impugned order dated 20.01.2018 the trial Judge has adopted this procedure. The trial Judge has rightly observed that the plaintiff and the defendant have right to adduce their evidence by producing documents.
5. In the above facts, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and the petitioner, if so desires, may lead evidence on the settlement arrived at between the parties.
6. The writ petition is dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Amit/