Dismissed

Ranchi Construction Company And v. Shailendra Kumar

Jharkhand HC23 Mar 2023WPC/3028/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an interim order for rent payment. The court found the case became infructuous as the revision case was finally decided. It accepted factual submissions that no overlapping period existed for double rent. All pending matters were disposed of without interference.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and interlocutory application were disposed of; any interim order was vacated with no orders passed modifying the rent liability.

Ranchi Construction Company And Vs Shailendra Kumar — Landlord and Tenant | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (C) No. 3028 of 2008

¶3

With

¶4

I.A. No. 2335 of 2023

¶5

Ranchi Construction Company, a Partnership firm, having its office at Sita Compound, 5. Main Road, Ranchi, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Chutia, District Ranchi through petitioner Nos. 2 to 4

¶6

Sardar Malkiat Singh, son of Late Sardar Didar Singh

¶7

Gurdeep Singh, son of Sardar Malkiat Singh

¶8

Manjeet Singh, son of Sardar Malkiat Singh

¶9

SI Nos. 2,3 and 4, all are partners of petitioner No. 1 and all are resident of Anantpur, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Chutia, District Ranchi

¶10

… … Petitioners

¶11

Versus Shailendra Kumar, son of Late Braj Mohan Prasad, residing at present at Sita Compound, 5, Main Road, Ranchi, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Chutia, District Ranchi … … Respondent ---

¶12

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶13

--For the Petitioner : Mr. M.K. Laik, Senior Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate ---

¶14

08 /23.03.2023 Learned counsel for the parties are present.

¶15

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

¶16

“ For issuance of direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 29.04.2008 passed in H.R.C. Revision Case No. 97/2006 by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, wherein at interim stage on an application filed by respondent, an order has been passed for making payment of sum of Rs. 1,69,433.23p against the present petitioners towards the rent at the rate of Rs. 1,597/- from 27.11.1990 up to July, 2007, in spite of the fact that the order has already been passed by the Court of Additional Munsif in Eviction Suit No. 4/2003 under Section 15 of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, directing the petitioner to deposit rent at the rate of Rs. 1,597/- from the date of filing of the application and current rent, wherein no rent was ordered to be deposited before filing of the application under Section 15 of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act.”

¶17

3. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. A.K. Sahani submits that I.A. No. 2335 of 2023 has been filed bringing on record the final

¶18

¶19

order passed in H.R.C. Revision Case No. 97 of 2006. He submits that present case has become infructuous in view of the fact that the impugned order in the present case was interim arrangement made for payment of arrears of rent.

¶20

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the present writ petition was filed on account of the fact that there were two parallel orders regarding payment of arrears of rent, one by Munsif in Eviction Suit No. 4 of 2003 and other by the impugned order and therefore cause of action still survives, as the petitioners cannot be made to make payment of rent twice.

¶21

5. In response to the aforesaid submission of the petitioners recorded in para 4 above, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is no overlapping period in two orders. He submits that one order is dated 29.04.2008 passed in H.R. C. Revision Case No. 97 of 2006 which is impugned in the present case and other order has been passed in Eviction Suit No. 4 of 2003 (Annexure-7). He submits that so far as eviction suit is concerned, the order for payment of rent is dated 27.08.2007 and a direction was issued for payment of rent, current and future from 27.08.2007 to 29.04.2008 and in the present impugned order, the arrear of rent is from 27.11.90 to July, 2007. However, he submits that there is no question of taking double rent for the same month and if any such plea arises at any proceeding, then the matter can be resolved in appropriate proceeding.

¶22

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court finds that the petitioners have filed the present case against the order dated 29.04.2008 passed in H.R. C. Revision Case No. 97 of 2006 whereby the petitioners, by way of interim measure were directed to make payment of rent @ 1597 from 27.11.1990 up to July, 2007, total being Rs. 1,69,433.23 and so far as Eviction Suit No. 4 of 2003 is concerned, an order under Section 15 was passed on 27.08.2007 for current and future rent for the period commencing from 27.08.2007. Thus, apparently there is no over lapping period in the matter of direction to pay rent.

¶23

7. It further appears that order in H.R.C. Revision Case No. 97 of 2006 has finally been passed on 15.11.2022 as annexed with the

¶24

¶25

interlocutory application and therefore the present case has become infructuous for all practical purposes.

¶26

8. It is sufficient to observe that the counsel for the respondent has himself submitted that there is no question of paying double rent for any month and if any such issue arises, the matter can be resolved through competent court/appropriate authority.

¶27

9. I.A. No. 2335 of 2023 stands disposed of.

¶28

10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶29

11. Interim order, if any , is vacated.

¶30

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶31

Binit

Ranchi Construction Company And v. Shailendra Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranchi Construction Company And v. Shailendra Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhikhendra Manjhi And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Esteem Public School through Its Director Shri Manoj Kumar Jha Chaibasa Vs Human Resource Development

Bishwa Nath Prasad Nagar Vs District Administration

Gopal Mahto and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Mrinal Vs Rural Dev Dept

Parmeshwar Dayal Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.