PRABHAT JAISWAL Vs. ABHISHEK RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party.

(2.) The instant civil revision filed under Sec. 21(8) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control, Act, 2011 is directed against the order dtd. 1/2/2022 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Palamau in Eviction Appeal No. XV-47/2020-21, whereby and whereunder the order dtd. 4/3/2021 passed by House Controller-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Medininagar, Palamau in Eviction Suit No. 02 of 2018-2019 has been set aside with direction for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party / plaintiff filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner / defendant from the suit premises, measuring an area of 270 sq. ft., portion of plot no. 626 corresponding to Khas Mahal Holding No. 394 in Mohalla Amla Toli within District Palamau situated on the ground floor on the ground of personal necessity under Sec. 19(1) (c) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control, Act, 2011. The petitioner / defendant appeared and filed an application under Sec. 21 (4) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control, Act, 2011 seeking leave to contest the aforesaid suit inter alia on the ground that the suit is not maintainable and there is no material on record to suggest personal necessity that too reasonable and bonafide personal necessity of the applicant. The House Controller- cum-Sub Divisional Officer, after considering the oral and documentary evidence filed by the parties in respect of the suit premises, recorded specific finding that there is lack of reasonable and good faith of personal necessity in favour of plaintiff and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff / opposite party. The plaintiff / opposite party filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, which has been wrongly allowed without appreciating the materials available on record, which suffers from jurisdictional error as well as the genuineness of the claim of applicant.