VIJAY KUMAR MAHESHWARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dtd. 20/1/2021 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 2 - the Revisional Authority-cum-Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi under Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 in J.B.C. Revision No. 26/2019, whereby the said revision preferred by the petitioner (the tenant) has been dismissed upholding the order dtd. 1/10/2019 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 3 - the Appellate Authority-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in J.B.C. Appeal No. 46 R 15/2017-18 as well as the order dtd. 11/10/2017 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 4 - the Rent Controller-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ranchi in J.B.C. Case No. 43/2016 by which the defence of the petitioner was struck off. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dtd. 1/10/2019 passed by the respondent no. 3 in J.B.C Appeal No. 46 R 15/2017-18, whereby the order dtd. 11/10/2017 passed by the respondent no. 4 in J.B.C. Case No. 43/2016 has been upheld by dismissing the appeal. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dtd. 11/10/2017 passed by the respondent no. 4 in J.B.C. Case No. 43/2016, whereby the defence of the petitioner was struck off.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had bonafide intention to deposit the arrears of rent as was directed by the respondent no. 4 vide order dtd. 12/5/2017 passed in J.B.C. Case No. 43/2016. Though the petitioner could not deposit the arrears of rent on the next date fixed i.e., on 24/5/2017 in the court of the respondent no. 4, however, on the next date i.e., on 5/6/2017, he was allowed to deposit the same with the respondent nos. 5 and 6 on 7/6/2017. However, on the said date, the respondent no. 4 did not hold the court and, therefore, the arrears of rent could not be deposited. It is further submitted that the bonafide of the intention of the petitioner to deposit the said amount in favour of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 is also evident from the fact that he had already got a demand draft of Rs.1,26,000.00 prepared on 1/6/2017 itself (a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition) and if the respondent no. 4 had held the court regularly after 7/6/2017, the petitioner would have certainly deposited the said amount. Since the petitioner could not deposit the said arrears of rent in favour of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 due to compelling circumstance, his defence in the eviction proceeding should not have been struck off by the respondent no. 4.

(3.) On the contrary, Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 and 6, submits that the petitioner had no intention to comply the order dtd. 12/5/2017 passed by the respondent no. 4 in J.B.C. Case No. 43/2016. He was required to make payment of Rs.1,26,000.00 as arrears of rent in two installments on next two dates, however, the default occurred on 24/5/2017 itself i.e., the next date fixed on which he was required to deposit the first installment of arrears of rent. Otherwise also, the respondent nos. 5 and 6 had already furnished the details of their joint bank account on 24/5/2017 itself so as to enable the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent as was directed by the respondent no. 4, but the said amount was neither deposited in the court nor was deposited in the said bank account of the respondent nos. 5 and 6. The said aspect has duly been considered by the respondent no. 4 in the impugned order dtd. 11/10/2017.