Allowed

Hafizur Rahman v. Nayeem Akhtar Siddiqui And Ors.

Jharkhand HC10 May 2019C.R./6/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered a revision against an order evicting a tenant. The trial court had decreed an eviction suit under the Jharkhand Building Rent Act by holding that the tenant had not obtained leave to contest, ignoring a separate application for such leave filed by the tenant. The High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the trial court order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 16.12.2015 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Court concerned to proceed with consideration of the reply filed by the defendant.

Hafizur Rahman Vs Nayeem Akhtar Siddiqui And Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

C.R. No. 6 of 2016

¶3

Hafizur Rahman ..... … Petitioner Versus 1. Nayeem Akhtar Siddiqui 2. Fahim Akhtar Siddiqui 3. Alquab Siddhiqui ...…. … Opposite Parties -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA -------For the Petitioner : M/s V. Shivnath, Sr. Advocate & Sumit Kumar, Advocate. For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Mohammad Asghar, Advocate. --------

¶4

08/ 10.05.2019 Heard learned counsel for the defendant petitioner and learned counsel for the plaintiffs opposite parties.

¶5

The defendant petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.12.2015 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ranchi, in J.B.C. Case No. 83 of 2015, whereby the defendant petitioner, who is the tenant in the suit property has been directed to be evicted, asking him to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs opposite parties within the period of 15 days.

¶6

The facts of this case lie in a short compass. The plaintiffs opposite parties filed the suit under Section 19(1)(c) of the Jharkhand Building (Rent, Lease and Eviction) Control Act, 2011, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), for eviction of the defendant petitioner from the suit property on the ground of personal necessity. It appears that the suit was contested by the defendant petitioner, but the suit has been decreed by the Trial Court below, holding that the defendant had not obtained the leave to contest the suit under Section 21(4) of the Act and, accordingly, decreed the suit, filed under Section 19(1)(c) of the said Act, without framing the issues, and allowing the parties to adduce evidence.

¶7

Learned counsel for the defendant petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the Trial Court below is absolutely misconceived, inasmuch as, the application, seeking leave to contest the suit, under Section 21(4) of the Act had already been filed by the defendant on 7.12.2015 itself, but taking it only to be a simple reply on behalf of the defendant, the impugned order has been passed by the Court below, which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

¶8

On the other hand, it is an admitted position by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs opposite parties that a reply was filed on behalf of the defendant on 7.12.2015, but the case of the plaintiffs opposite parties is that the said reply

¶9

-2-

¶10

was filed belatedly by the defendant, which could not be taken into consideration. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court towards the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties, in which, the order-sheet of the Trial Court below has been brought on record, and it is pointed out from the said order-sheet that on 16.11.2015, 30.11.2015 and 4.12.2015, the matter was adjourned on the time petitions filed by the defendant, and the case was fixed for 7.12.2015, when ultimately the reply was filed by the defendant and, thereafter, the case was fixed for arguments. Learned counsel submitted that since the reply was filed belatedly, it was rightly not considered by the Court below, and there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court below.

¶11

Having heard learned counsels for both the parties and upon going through the record, I find that the reply dated 7.12.2015 filed by the defendant in the Court below, has also been brought on record, which clearly mentions that it was filed under Section 21(4) of the aforesaid Act, and even though the order dated 7.12.2015 acknowledges the filing of the reply, it is nowhere stated in the said order that it was not to be taken into consideration for any legal lacuna.

¶12

Once an application was filed by the defendant under Section 21(4) of the Act, it was for the Court concerned to dispose of the application either rejecting, or granting leave to contest the suit, depending upon the facts of the case, but if that order was not passed by the Trial Court below, the suit could not have been decreed ignoring the objections of the defendant on the ground that the defendant had not obtained leave to contest the suit under Section 21(4) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned order, passed by the Trial Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

¶13

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 16.12.2015, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ranchi, in J.B.C. Case No. 83 of 2015, is hereby, set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the Court concerned to proceed further from the stage prior to that order, and taking into consideration the reply dated 7.12.2015 filed by the defendant under Section 21(4) of the aforesaid Act.

¶14

This civil revision is accordingly, allowed, with the directions as above.

¶15

( H. C. Mishra, J.)

¶16

Amitesh/-

Hafizur Rahman v. Nayeem Akhtar Siddiqui And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hafizur Rahman v. Nayeem Akhtar Siddiqui And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Kumar Pahari Vs Sukumar Goswami and Anr.

Chand Mahto Alias Sudama Mahto Alias Sudam Mato Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramesh Sharma Alias Amit Sharma Alias Titu Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dilip Roy Vs Amodi Devi

Shekhar Kumar Roy Vs Jitendra Nath Dey and Ors.

Santoshi Devi Vs Mahesh Ravidas