The court disposed of a writ petition seeking a direction to prevent eviction and quashing of a notice to vacate. The petitioner claimed tenancy rights through a caretaker arrangement. Finding no subsisting right or valid allotment, the court dismissed the application.
None. Writ application dismissed maintaining the direction to vacate.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 2158 of 2011 Hari Krishna Jha .... Petitioner
Versus
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
--For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate For the Housing Board : Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate & Ms. Amtira Kumari, Advocate ---
Order No. 05 Dated 20th August, 2019
Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Amtira Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the Jharkhand State Housing Board.
The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction upon the respondents not to evict the petitioner as well as his family members from the premises as he is legally entitled to stay in the same on the basis of various correspondences as well as on the basis of the decision of the Court dated 29.12.1973 by which one S. N. Sahay was inducted as a tenant and thereafter he allowed the father of the petitioner, late Babua Jha to occupy the premises as caretaker of the same. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 06.04.2011 as contained in letter No. 662 by which the respondent No. 2 has directed to vacate the premises without adopting the due process of law. The petitioner has also prayed for stay of the operation of the order dated 06.04.2011 as contained in letter No. 662 issued by respondent No. 2.
The factual aspect of the case reveals that the House No. M-32 which is a two storied house situated at Harmu Housing Colony was let out to one S. N. Sahay who was working as Assistant Editor in the Statesman. Late S. N. Sahay was directed to deposit the arrears of rent which was adhered to. It has been stated that the father of the petitioner late Babua Jha was inducted as a caretaker in the house in question with the consent and knowledge of the Jharkhand State Housing Board. It has been claimed that late Babua Jha was working as Executive Engineer in Rural Engineering Department, Govt. of Bihar who was given permission to stay in the house. The petitioner was served with a notice dated 06.04.2011directing him to vacate the premises and the petitioner clams that he was never heard prior to issuance of the said notice.
On 23.07.2019, learned counsel for the respondent Jharkhand State Housing board on instruction submitted about the encroachment done by the petitioner. He was directed to file a counter affidavit which has been filed and from a perusal of the same it appears that the house in question was allotted to one S. N. Sahay who was working as Assistant Editor in the Statesman on rental basis i.e. Rs. 195.50/- per month. The original allottee S. N. Sahay had died and the tenancy came to an end in the year 1995. Reference has also been made that sometime in 1993 one Babua Jha occupied the house in question in an unauthorised manner, and he had preferred a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 2330 of 1999 (R) for allotment of the house in question in his favour. However, the said writ application was dismissed on 19.03.2001. It has also been alleged that after the death of Babua Jha one Manoj Kumar Jha had applied for allotment of the house in question, but he was not allotted the said house. It has been alleged that a letter bearing No. 662 dated 06.04.2011 was issued to Manoj Kumar Jha directing him to vacate the premises in question. The present petitioner is another son of late Babua Jha.
The basis of the claim of the house in question seems to be some correspondences with the Housing Board and late Babua Jha who has claimed to have entered into the premises being a caretaker. The original allottee S. N. Sahay has died and subsequent thereto Babua Jha continued to occupy the quarter along with his family. As on today his sons appear to have occupied the same. It is an admitted case that there is not a single chit of paper showing that the house in question was allotted in favour of Babua Jha and the writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 2330 of 1999 (R) preferred by him for allotment of the house in question in his favour, was dismissed on 19.03.2001.
It has been stated that on one pretext or the other, the petitioner and others continued to remain in occupation of the house in question and therefore the respondents had righty issued a notice giving a direction to vacate the premises in question. The petitioner does not have any subsisting right in the house in question and in such circumstances, therefore no interference is caused in the impugned notice dated 06.04.2011 as contained in letter No. 662 issued by respondent No. 2. This writ application is accordingly dismissed.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
MK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has a legal right to remain in occupation of the premises and thus necessary stay of the eviction direction.
Whether the Writ Petitioner had a right to interference by the Housing Board to vacate the premises.
Hari Krishna Jha
The Jharkhand State Housing Board
The Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
