JITENDRA NATH DAS Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dtd. 21/1/2015 passed by the respondent no. 3 .. the Rent Controller-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Madhupur in Building Eviction Case No. 2 of 2014-15, whereby the respondent no. 3 has directed the defendant/petitioner to vacate the house of the plaintiff/respondent no. 4 and to pay arrears of rent. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dtd. 15/12/2017 passed by the respondent no. 2 .. the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar in Revenue Miscellaneous Appeal No. 68 of 2014-15, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order of the respondent no. 3 passed in Building Eviction Case No. 2 of 2014-15 has been affirmed.

(2.) The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the plaintiff/respondent no. 4 filed an eviction suit being Title Eviction Suit No. 02 of 2014 under Sec. 19(1)(d) of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2011") praying inter alia for the following reliefs:

(3.) The petitioner appeared in the said suit and filed an application on 6/8/2014 under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC for rejection of the plaint filed by the respondent no. 4 under Sec. 19(1)(d) of the Act, 2011. The respondent no. 4 filed rejoinder to the said application of the petitioner on 17/12/2014. The respondent no. 3 without deciding the said application dtd. 6/8/2014 disposed of Building Eviction Case No. 2 of 2014-15 vide order dtd. 21/1/2015 directing the defendant/petitioner to vacate the house of the respondent no. 4 and to pay the arrears of rent. The petitioner preferred appeal before the respondent no. 2 being Revenue Misc. Appeal No. 68 of 2014-15 contending that the respondent no. 3 acted without jurisdiction as per the provisions of Sec. 1(3) of the Act, 2011 since no power was conferred to the Respondent no. 3 to adjudicate the eviction suit. The respondent no. 2, however, dismissed the said appeal vide order dtd. 15/12/2017 and affirmed the order of the respondent no. 3.