Quashed

Ramji Prasad v. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary Ranchi

Jharkhand HC2 Feb 2021WPC/2747/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed an eviction notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer under the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011. The court held that the authority acted in haste without instituting an execution case and violated statutory procedure and a prior court order.

What did the court decide?

The letter dated 19.09.2020 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer directing the eviction was quashed. The respondent is at liberty to execute the order strictly following the procedure of law.

Ramji Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand through Chief… — Execution and Attachment | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2747 of 2020

Ramji Prasad

… … Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Ranchi

¶7

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Gumla

¶8

The Circle Officer, Gumla

¶9

The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla

¶10

Shagufta Praween

¶11

… … Respondents

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶13

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shubhashis Rasik Soren, Advocate For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, AC to AG For the Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate

¶14

-----

¶15

Order No. 07 Dated: 02.02.2021

¶16

The present writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing.

¶17

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the letter dated 19.09.2020 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent no. 2 – the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gumla, whereby the petitioner has been directed to vacate the land and shop situated at Mouza - Tower Chowk, Sisai Road, Gumla, P.S and District Gumla under Khata No. 368, Plot No. 389, measuring an area of 0.05 acre (hereinafter referred to as “the said premises”).

¶18

2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that one Smt. Phooli Devi executed a power of attorney dated 23.09.2002 for the said premises in favour of her son Shyam Kumar Sharma. On the basis of the said power of attorney, Shyam Kumar Sharma executed an agreement to sale of the said premises on 11.01.2007 with the petitioner and out of the total consideration of Rs. 21 Lakhs, he received part of consideration of Rs. 18.2 Lakhs. Subsequently, Smt. Phooli Devi sold the said land to her son Shyam Kumar Sharma. The petitioner filed a suit being Original Suit No. 38 of 2016 for specific performance of agreement dated 11.01.2017, which is still pending in the court of Sub-Judge-I, Gumla. During the pendency of the suit, Shyam Kumar Sharma sold the said premises to the respondent no. 5 who thereafter filed an eviction suit being

¶19

¶20

Eviction Suit No. 49/2020 before the respondent no. 2 for eviction of the petitioner from the said premises under Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2011”). The petitioner-defendant filed written statement in the said suit on 28.07.2020 and objected the claim of the plaintiffrespondent no. 5 stating inter alia that the respondent no. 5 was a pendent lite purchaser and Original Suit No. 38 of 2016 was still pending. However, the respondent no. 2 disposed of the said eviction suit vide order dated 04.09.2020 and thereafter, the respondent no. 3 – the Circle Officer, Gumla directed the petitioner to vacate the premises in question vide notice as contained in letter no. 662 dated 08.09.2020. The petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court being W.P(C) No. 2568 of 2020 and subsequently, filed Appeal (Eviction) No. 22 of 2020-21 before the respondent no. 4 – the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 15.09.2020 quashing/setting aside the notice as contained in letter no. 662 dated 08.09.2020 issued by the Circle Officer, Gumla, however, it was specified in the said order passed by this Court that the same would not come in the way of the Rent Controller to take subsequent steps in accordance with law. The respondent no. 2 has again issued the impugned letter dated 19.09.2020 directing the petitioner to vacate the said premises in the light of order passed in Eviction Suit No. 49/2020. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶21

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned letter has been issued by the respondent no. 2 in contravention of the provisions of Section 39 of the Act, 2011. It is further submitted that the said letter is also violative of the direction of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No. 2568 of 2020, whereby the respondent no. 2 was directed to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. It is also submitted that the conduct of the respondent no. 2 suffers from malafide as the said authority has continuously issued the impugned notices ignoring the law. It is also submitted that before issuing the impugned letter, the respondent no. 2 also failed to follow the principles of natural justice as no

¶22

¶23

opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner.

¶24

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submits that the respondent no. 2 has not intentionally violated the order dated 15.09.2020 passed by this Court. In fact, the notice dated 19.09.2020 was issued by the respondent no. 2 prior to the communication of the order dated 15.09.2020 passed by this Court.

¶25

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 5 submits that this Court, vide order dated 15.09.2020, had given liberty to the Rent Controller to take subsequent steps in accordance with law and as such the respondent no. 2 has rightly issued the order dated 19.09.2020 for eviction of the petitioner from the said premises.

¶26

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned letter dated 19.09.2020 has been issued in violation of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2568 of 2020.

¶27

7. I have gone through the order dated 15.09.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2568 of 2020 wherein this Court while quashing the letter dated 662 dated 08.09.2020 observed that Section 39 of the Act, 2011 empowers the Controller himself to execute the order passed by him as well as the orders passed by the appellate and revisional authorities. It was further held that the Circle Officer has not been conferred any such power of issuing notice of eviction under the provisions of the Act, 2011 to implement the order of the Controller. Since an appeal was already filed before the respondent no. 4 against the order dated 04.09.2020 passed by the respondent no. 2 in Eviction Suit No. 49 of 2020, the petitioner as well as respondent no. 5 of the present writ petition were given liberty to pursue their respective cases before the said appellate authority i.e., the respondent no. 4.

¶28

8. It appears that immediately after passing of the order dated 15.09.2020, the respondent no. 2 issued order dated

¶29

¶30

19.09.2020 directing the petitioner to vacate the said premises by 27.09.2020 and to pay the entire dues of monthly rent from April 2018 to August 2020, failing which the order would be executed forcefully. I am of the view that the said order has been passed by the respondent no. 2 in haste without instituting any execution case and following the due procedure for execution of the order dated 04.09.2020. I thus find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned action of the respondent no. 2 suffers from unreasonableness and infirmity.

¶31

9. Be that as it may. The learned counsel for the respondentState has submitted that at the time of issuance of the impugned letter dated 19.09.2020, the order dated 15.09.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2568 of 2020 was not supplied to the respondent no. 2 and thus any deviation from the said order is not deliberate or with a view to defeat the order of this Court.

¶32

10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-State, the letter dated 19.09.2020 issued by respondent no. 2 is hereby quashed. The respondent no. 2 is, however, at liberty to execute the order dated 04.09.2020 strictly following the procedure of law. Since the petitioner has filed appeal before the respondent no. 4, he may pursue the same including praying for stay of execution of the order dated 04.09.2020 passed by the respondent no. 2.

¶33

11. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶34

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶35

Manish

Ramji Prasad v. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary Ranchi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramji Prasad v. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary Ranchi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kedar Choudhary Vs State of Jharkhand

Ms Sanjay Stone Chips through Its Proprietor Sanjay Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anju Devi Alias Anju Murmu Vs Kunwar Devi

Ms N P Construction Throguh Its Proprietor Shri Pramod Singh Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Barun Konar Vs Sameena Jahan

Shankar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Pr Secretary Department of Water Resources