ANIL KUMAR TIWARY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent no. 2 was an employee of Heavy Engineering Corporation (HEC), Ranchi and got the said quarter on a long term lease (LTL), who is residing in the same alongwith the petitioners and other family members. It is further submitted that in the year 2007 when the said quarter was allotted to the respondent no. 2, the same was not in a habitable condition and the petitioners by dint of their labour made it fit to reside. It is also submitted that a cousin of the petitioners namely, Shailesh Kumar Tiwary started residing in the said quarter for education purpose, but later on, he started instigating the respondent no. 2 to evict the petitioners from the said quarter due to which the respondent no. 2 started pressurizing the petitioners to leave the same. It is further submitted that the petitioners have two children who are studying in a reputed local school. The petitioner no. 1 is the employee of an outsource company of HEC, Ranchi and his earning is only Rs.8000.00 per month which is not sufficient to maintain the petitioners and their children. It is also submitted that the respondent no. 2 filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ranchi under Sec. 22(2) of the Act, 2007 praying inter alia for issuance of direction upon the petitioners to vacate the said quarter which is his self-acquired property. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ranchi ordered an enquiry through his officers who submitted the report disclosing that no physical violence was perpetrated against the respondent no. 2 by the petitioners. However, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ranchi passed the impugned order dtd. 19/10/2020 directing the petitioners to vacate the said quarter within 15 days of the said order. It is further submitted that the petitioner no. 1 has no other means of livelihood except his salary and as such, he is not in a position to hire a separate house. It is also submitted that the petitioners have every right to live with honour and dignity in the said quarter.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the respondent no. 2 is a 70 years old person. He is also an ex-service man and a retired employee of HEC, Ranchi. The said quarter is a self-acquired property of the respondent no. 2. In the enquiry, though the evidence of physical violence was not found, however, it surfaced that the petitioners used to inflict mental torture upon the respondent no. 2. The facts as narrated in the impugned order has not been controverted by the petitioners before this Court by bringing on record any contrary material. They are, however, claiming right to live in the said quarter on the ground that the earning of the petitioner no. 1 is not sufficient to hire separate house and the petitioner no. 2 being the daughter-in-law has right to live in the said house with full dignity.