SAGARMAL JAIN Vs. RAMJIWAN SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the petitioner has obtained a rule calling upon the opposite party, Ramjiwan Sah, to show cause why a writ in the nature of certiorari or mandamus should not be issued and the execution proceedings pending in the court of the Subdivi-sional Officer, Deoghar, should not be quashed. Cause was shown against the rule by Mr. Lal Narain Sinha on behalf of Ramjiwan Sah upon whom the notice of the rule was directed to be given.

(2.) The petitioner is a tenant of a cinema house located in holding No. 26, ward No. 6, of the Deoghar Municipality, of which the opposite party, Ramjiwan Sah, is the proprietor. In the year 1943, there was a verbal lease with respect to the holding on the basis of which the petitioner was put in possession. On the 14th of November 1944, a written lease was executed and registered for a period of five years from the 1st of November 1944 to the 31st of October 1949. On the 2nd of November 1950, the opposite party made an application under Section 11(1)(b) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, for evicting the petitioner on the ground that the period of tenancy had expired. After notice to the parties the Rent Control Officer made an order on the 8th of January 1951, evicting the petitioner from the building in the suit. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, but the appeal was dismissed and the order of the Rent Control Officer was affirmed. Thereafter, the petitioner instituted a suit, namely, Title Suit No. 16 of 1951, in the court of the 'Subdivisional Officer' of Deoghar, asking for a declaration that the order of the Rent Control Officer dated the 8th January, 1951, and the order of the Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division were without jurisdiction and 'ultra vires.' The petitioner also asked for a permanent injunction restraining the opposite party from executing the order of eviction passed by the House Control Officer. The petitioner also prayed for certain other reliefs which are not material for the disposal of the present case. After the suit was instituted before the Subordinate Judge the petitioner filed an application for an order of temporary injunction restraining the opposite party from executing the order of the Rent Control Officer. The Subordinate Judge refused to grant temporary injunction on the 30th of April 1951. Against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge the petitioner preferred an appeal to the High Court. The appeal was dismissed and the High Court refused to grant temporary injunction restraining the opposite party from executing the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Officer. The order of the High Court was passed on the 4th of May 1951.

(3.) The petitioner thereafter filed an objection under Section 47, Civil P. C., in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Deoghar where the opposite party had applied for executing the order of the Rent Control Officer. The petitioner objected on the ground that the court of the Subdivisional Officer of Deoghar had no jurisdiction to proceed with the execution under Section 17 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act 1947, since the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Subdivisional Officer extended only to Rs. 500/- whereas the annual rent reserved under the lease was Rs. 2000/-. The objection was rejected by the Subdivisional Officer who held that he had jurisdiction to execute the order of the Rent Control Officer dated the 8th January 1951. Not satisfied with the decision of the Subdivisional Officer of Deoghar, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner of the Santal Parganas who dismissed the appeal. The petitioner then moved the Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division, but the revision application was dismissed on the 29th of February 1952 and the decision of the Sub-divisional Officer was affirmed.