IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (C) No. 5317 of 2009
---
Pawan Ram ... ... Petitioner
Versus
Dashrath Modi and another ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R. K. MERATHIA
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate
---
2. 30.01.2010
: Heard.
This writ petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated
4.6.2009 (annexure 4) and 3.9.2009 (annexure 6) passed by the
learned Munsif, Koderma in Eviction Suit No. 4 of 2007 allowing the
petition filed on behalf of the plaintiff-landlord-respondent under
Section 15 of the Bihar Building Act (for short ‘the Act’) and rejecting
the subsequent petition filed on behalf of the petitioner.
On the petition filed under Section 15 of the Act after hearing
the parties and considering the materials on record in details, the
learned court below has directed the tenant-petitioner to deposit Rs.
300/- per month against rent from March 2008 till May 2009 and also
current and future rent. The operative portion of the order dated
4.6.2009 reads as follows.
“On the above discussion, I find and hold that, who is
landlord of suit premises, it is subjudice before this court, but
the status of Df. in the suit premises is only tenant. The Df.
himself admitted that he is tenant in the suit premises @ of Rs.
300/- per month and documents filed by the Dfs. shows this fact
that he paid the rent of suit premises till the month of February
’08 to C.H.Comp. So, Df. is directed to deposit the arrear rent
from the month of March ’08 till May ’09 @ of Rs. 300/- per
month within 15 days of this order. The Df. also directed to
deposit the present and future rent of the suit premises within
the pendency of this suit for every month on or before 15th day
of next succeeding month. Failing which the defence of Df.
against the ejectment shall be struck off. This matter that, who
is entitle the rent of suit premises, it will be decided at the time
of judgment….”
Then, a petition was filed on 4.6.2009 by the petitioner for
recalling the said order claiming that he had deposited the rent for the
said period i.e., from March 2008 to May 2009, but could not
-2-
substantiate such submission and the court disbelieved such plea of
the petitioner. However, the court observed that the purported rent
receipt filed by the petitioner after passing the said order dated
4.6.2009 will be considered at the time of judgment, if the court finds
that these rent receipts are genuine and original. Accordingly, the
court refused to recall the said order dated 4.6.2009.
From the facts and circumstances noticed above, it is clear that
the court has considered all relevant aspects of the matter and has
rightly directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 300/- rent per month from
March 2008 to May 2009 and current rent.
I do not find any reason to interfere with the said impugned
orders in exercise of my supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India.
The petitioner is directed to deposit the rent from the month of
March 2008 till January 2010 at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month by
15.2.2010. The petitioner will go on depositing such rent from the
month of February 2010 onwards by the 15th day of next succeeding
month, if the petitioner fails to comply with any part of this order, his
decree against ejectment shall be struck of.
The question as to who is the landlord and entitled to receive
the rent of the suit premises and whether the petitioner has paid rent
from March 2008 to May 2009 will be decided at the time of judgment
of the case as observed by the learned court below.
With these observations and directions and modification in the
impugned orders, this writ petition is dismissed. However, no costs.
(R. K. Merathia, J.)
R. Shekhar Cp 2