Jharkhand High Court
Ajay Kumar Singh @ Ajay Singh vs Rakesh Narayan on 8 May, 2012
Author: P.P.Bhatt
Bench: P.P.Bhatt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
WP(C) No. 1532 of 2011
---
Ajay Kumar Singh @ Ajay Singh . .... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Rakesh Narayan .....Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P.BHATT
---
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv.
For the respondent : Mr. Manjul Prasad, Adv.
---
Order No. 04 Dated 08th May, 2012
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners, by way of filing this petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India, has prayed for quashing the order dated 11.2.2011
passed by the learned Munsif, Palamau at Daltonganj in Eviction Suit No. 10
of 2009 whereby, the learned court below refused to accept the written
statement filed on behalf of the defendant stating therein that defendant did
not comply mandatory provision of Section 14(4) of the Jharkhand Buildings
(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring order impugned
dated 11.2.2011 submitted that the learned court below has failed to consider
the suit as required to be considered under Section 11(1) (C) of the BBC Act.
But instead of that, the learned court below has proceeded in view of Section
14(4) of the BBC Act and accordingly, the request made by the defendant has
been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant has referred to
and relied upon the judgment reported in 1985 PLJR 490 and by refrying para
15 of the said judgment, submitted that the ratio laid down in this judgment is
also applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
4. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
the learned court below has not committed any illegality in passing the order
impugned and therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner may be dismissed
by this Hon'ble Court.
5. Considering the aforesaid rival submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties and from perusal of the material on record and also
looking to the nature of this case, the suit has been filed by the present
petitioner, on the ground of defaulter, personal necessity and also the
dilapidated condition of the suit premises which is the dangerous for the life of
the locality of the human and the same is evident form para 12 of the petition
kept at Annexure-1 to this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
referred and relied upon para 15 of the judgment reported in 1985 PLJR 490
(Reyazul Haque Vs. Mosst. Maimun Khatoon and Anr.) and submitted that
the ratio laid down in the present case is also applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the present case. Para 15 of the said judgment reads as
under:
"15. Section 14 of the Act has been enacted for the benefit of
the landlord in two cases mentioned above, He can avail of this
benefit only if he confines his claim to the permissible grounds.
In case he elects to add grounds other than those specified in
clauses © and (e) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 11 of the Act, he
foregoes the privilege of the summary procedure prescribed in
Section 14 of the Act. I do not see any incongruity in this
proposition. A person is entitled to forgo the benefit of a statute
passed for his protection and conferring benefit upon him in his
personal capacity. If a landlord is not sure that a building is bona
fide required by him for his personal need or that the tenant was
holding a lease for a specified period which was expired, he
may add other grounds mentioned in sub-section(1) of Section
11 of the Act to his statement of claim seeking ejectment of the
tenant. In such a situation the plaintiff forgoes the benefit which
the law confers upon him under the provisions of Section 14 of
the Act."
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case
and in light of the judgment referred above, this Court is of the view that the
impugned order dated 11.2.2011 is required to be set aside and the written
statement filed on behalf of the defendant be taken on record. Thereafter, the
plaintiff will be at liberty to file rejoinder, if any. Accordingly order dated
11.2.2011is hereby quashed and set aside. The petition is allowed accordingly with no order as to cost.
(P.P.Bhatt, J.) Anu/