The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking to set aside eviction orders at landsmans' built on risk of collapse. Since the petitioner had already been evicted by the time of the hearing, the petition was not considered on merits and disposed of.
The writ application was disposed of as the petitioner had already been evicted.
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. 4300 of 2008
Ramu Prasad Jaiswal … … Petitioner
Versus
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Shubham Mishra, A.C. to S. C. - II
07/20.08.2019 Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shubham Mishra, learned A.C. to S. C. – II.
In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the orders dated 12.04.2008 and 11.08.2008 passed by the respondent nos. 4 and 5 by which the petitioner has been directed to vacate the rented premises which belongs to the landlord namely Nageshwar Sharan Lal. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the concerned respondent not to give effect to the orders dated 12.04.2008 and 11.08.2008.
The factual aspect of the case reveals that through an agreement the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in a shop premises situated at Plot No. 580, Muhalla – Amlatoli, Ward No. 10 comprising an area of 10”X 18”. The petitioner claims that although the agreement had expired at the end of June, 1984 but the petitioner still continued to remain in occupation. In view of the agreement the petitioner had constructed a shop at his own cost and had entered in possession in the year 1984 itself. In the year 2007 the landlord died and the petitioner received a legal notice on behalf of power of attorney holder on 20.12.2007 in which he was directed to vacate the rented premises. On 12.04.2008 the respondent no. 4 had issued a notice to the petitioner to vacate the premises. The petitioner had submitted a reply to the said notice and subsequently on 11.08.2008 the petitioner was once again directed to vacate the premises.
-2-
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which it has been stated that the Superintendent of Police, Palamau had requested the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau to get the shops in question vacated as all four shops were in dilapidated condition and the same may collapse at any time. Accordingly, the respondents had issued notice to the petitioner and had directed him to vacate the premises.
On 18.07.2019 the learned A.C. to S.C. – II was directed to verify the present status of the shops as the last enquiry was conducted in the year 2008. Today, on instruction learned A.C. to S. C. – II has submitted that the premises have been vacated and the landlord is now occupying the premise. He has further submitted that the premises have been repaired and there is no threat of the said premises collapsing.
In view of the fact that the petitioner has been evicted from the premises, I am not inclined to consider the prayer of the petitioner at this stage.
This writ application accordingly stands disposed of.
Let a copy of the instruction so received by the learned A.C. to S.C. – II produced at the Bar be kept on the record.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
Umesh/-
Ramu Prasad Jaiswal
The State of Jharkhand
Secretary Urban Development, Jharkhand, Ranchi
Deputy Commissioner, Palamu
Ajay Kumar Ajay
Sudhir Kumar Das
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
