KUMAR KANT JAISWAL, SON OF LATE RAMESH BHAGAT, RESIDENT OF TUNDI ROAD, GOVINDPUR, P.O.GOVINDPUR, P.S.GOVINDPUR, DISTRICT Vs. DEEPAK PATHAK ALIAS BHASKAR PATHAK, SON OF LATE NANDLAL PATHAK RESIDENT OF TUNDI ROAD, GOVINDPUR, P.O.GOVINDPUR, P.S.GOVINDPUR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, the defendant-petitioner has moved this writ application for quashing of the order dated 08.05.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Jr. Division), 1st, Dhanbad in Title Suit No.44 of 2014 whereby and where under the petition filed by the plaintiff-respondent under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'the Code') for impleading one Chandan Sao as defendant no.2 to the suit, has been allowed.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for prohibitory and mandatory injunction under Sections 38 and 39 read with Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 with the pleading that father of the plaintiff was inducted as a tenant in the shop premise by the father of the defendant-petitioner in the year 1975 and since after the death of his father, the plaintiff has been occupying the said shop premise as described in the schedule of the plaint on payment of rent and has been carrying business in the said shop and never committed any default in rent. Since relationship between the plaintiff and defendant was extremely cordial, the plaintiff requested the landlord-defendant for some necessary repairing and on the assurance of the defendant-landlord, the plaintiff handed over the shop premise to him for repairing but to utter surprise to the plaintiff-respondent, the petitioner after making necessary repairing, handed over the shop in question to some other person and refused to hand over the shop premise to the defendant-respondent. The plaintiff being tenant of the shop had a right to continue in possession of the same till he is evicted from there in accordance with law but by playing fraud in the name of repairing the suit shop he has been dispossessed and some other person has been inducted. Hence, this suit.

(3.) After appearance, the defendant-petitioner filed a written statement denying all the pleadings of the plaintiff and further pleaded that the plaintiff had voluntarily vacated the shop premises because of his loss in business and there was never any dispute with regard to default in payment of rent. It was further pleaded that since the plaintiff's business of running liquor shop was badly affected and the liquor license was allotted to one Paran Mahato and subsequently to one Chandan Sao who is at present in exclusive possession of the shop room which was vacated by the plaintiff and so the claim of the plaintiff of dispossession and of restoration of the possession of the tenanted shop room does not arise at all.