Dismissed

Teko Sao v. Virendra Prasad Sinha

Jharkhand HC19 Jan 2021WPC/5265/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable. The Court held that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of preferring an appeal under Section 36 of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011 against the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with the direction to the petitioner to prefer an appeal within the specified time limit.

Teko Sao Vs Virendra Prasad Sinha — Landlord and Tenant | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.5265 of 2017

¶2

Teko Sao ..... … Petitioner Versus Virendra Prasad Sinha …. …. Respondent

¶3

¶4

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶5

¶6

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Shailesh, Advocate --------

¶7

04/19.01.2021 The present writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing.

¶8

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 25^th May, 2017 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Controller, Chas in J.B.C.A. Case No.26 of 2016/Title (Eviction) Suit No.24 of 2016, whereby the said case has been disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to vacate Shop No.5 having dimension of 154 square feet (22’ x 7’), 120 square feet (15’ x 8’) total 274 square feet situated at Revenue Village-Chas over Khata No.165, Plot No.7089 measuring an area of 3 decimals.

¶9

The learned counsel for the petitioner has e-mailed a copy of order dated 29^th October, 2020 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cumController, Chas in Execution Case No.17 of 2017 arising out of J.B.C.A. Case No.26 of 2016 by reasons of which a magistrate has been deputed for evicting the petitioner from the premises in question.

¶10

No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent in this case. However, Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that in fact the present writ petition is not maintainable at this stage, as the petitioner has efficacious remedy of preferring appeal under Section 36 of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that the petitioner has efficacious remedy of preferring appeal against the impugned order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Controller, Chas, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition at this stage and the same is dismissed being not maintainable.

¶12

It is, however, observed that if the petitioner prefers an appeal by 3^rd February, 2021 against the impugned order passed by the Sub-

¶13

-2-

¶14

Divisional Officer-cum-Controller, Chas before the appellate authority along with limitation petition for condonation of delay caused in filing of the appeal, the appellate authority, shall consider the said petition liberally keeping in view that the writ petition remained pending before this Court for some time. The petitioner is also at liberty to make an application for interim order before the appellate authority which shall be decided by the appellate authority on its own merit.

¶15

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶16

Rohit

Teko Sao v. Virendra Prasad Sinha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Teko Sao v. Virendra Prasad Sinha

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

Ms Maa Chinmastika Fuel Pvt. Ltd. Represented through Ram Kumar Singh Vs Punjab National Bank through Its Branch Manager

Bibi Rajiaullah Vs MD Retaz

Smt Uma Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Subash Kumar Sahi Vs State of Jharkhand

Ms Jharkhand Ispat Pvt. Ltd. through Its Constituted Attorney Punya Nand Jha Vs Damodar Valley Corporation through Its Chairman

Shivdut Chourasia Vs Virendra Prasad Sinha