Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 2412
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Amitav K Gupta, J.
Kailash Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5579 of 2004; Civil Revision No. 13 of 2017
Decided On : 27-07-2018
S.K. Sharma, Adv., P.K. Mishra, Adv., A.K. Dwivedi, Adv., R.K. Tiwary, Adv., S.K. Agarwal, Adv., B.V. Kumar, Adv.
The main legal point established is the limited defense available to a tenant under Section 14(4) of the Jharkhand Building(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000, in cases of personal necessity claimed by the landlord.
Headnote:
Eviction Suit - Personal Necessity - Jharkhand Building(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000, Section 11 - Section 14(4) - Section 2(f) - Section 24 - Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, Section 3 - Hindu Marriage Act, Section 24 - Interim Maintenance
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the tenant based on personal necessity under Section 11 of the Jharkhand Building(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000. The defendant contested the suit, and the court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff's personal necessity for the suit premises was established, and the defendant's defense was limited under Section 14(4) of the Act. The court also considered the evidence and supplementary affidavit presented by the defendant.
Issues: The issues revolved around the plaintiff's personal necessity, the defendant's limited defense, and the consideration of additional evidence presented by the defendant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Section 11, Section 14(4), and Section 2(f) of the Jharkhand Building(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000, as well as Section 24 of the Act and Section 3 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, in reaching its decision.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision and upheld the decree for eviction, while also directing expeditious disposal of the suit within six months.
JUDGMENT
Amitav K. Gupta, J. - This revision is directed against the impugned order and judgment dated 06.03.2017 passed by Civil Judge, Jr. Division(Munsif), Giridih in Eviction Suit no.08/2006 whereby the plaintiff''s suit was decreed with a direction to the defendant(petitioner in the present case) to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises.
2. The plaintiff( O.P. in the present case) had instituted the suit for eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity in term of Section 11 OFLTHE Jharkhand Building(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000 ( in short to be called ''Act'') as he requires the suit premises for starting the business.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the defendant was inducted as a tenant on the basis of a registered kirayanama for the period from 12.01.2001 to 07.01.2006.
The defendant had appeared and filed their written statement but since no leave was granted the suit was initially decreed in terms of Section 14(4) of the Act. Against the said order the petitioner had earlier preferred revision and this Court vide order dated 26.08.2016 had remitted the matter to the court below to decide the case on the basis of the evidence and shall exercise its discretion in permitting the defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff''s witnesses only on limited points of lease deed and personal necessity without putting forth the defence of the defendant to plead his own case.
The court below, on the basis of the remand, examined plaintiff''s witnesses, who were cross-examined by the O.P. and decreed the suit which order and judgment is under challenge before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision reported in the case of ............; 2007 2 JLJR 166 and submitted that the ratio has been laid down in the aforesaid case while relying on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of ............; 1981 AIR SC 1113 wherein it has been stated that the landlord for the purpose of personal necessity, has been given very limited defence confining to a person who is the owner as defence from the defendant .......envisaged in Section 2(f) which is inclusive definition.
5. It is contended that perusal of the evidence of the witnesses will disclose that the plaintiff, who was examined as P.W.3, has admitted that the property belongs to his mother. That there was an earlier partition between the brothers which has been supported by P.W.4, Anil Kumar Gupta, who is also a brother of the plaintiff. It is further submitted that petitioner has also filed a supplementary affidavit stating therein that he had instituted a suit for specific performance of contract as he had paid Rs. 3.00 lakhs to the mother of the plaintiff who had entered into an agreement for sale and in part performance has received the consideration amount. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the court below.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the O.P. has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the court below has considered the entire aspect and elaborate discussion of the evidence has been made in para 23 of the impugned judgment.
7. In the case of Rajesh Burman vs. Mitul Chatterjee , (2009) 1 SCC 398, the Supreme Court has elaborately discussed the meaning of the words ''maintenance'' and ''support''. The term "maintenance" is defined in Black''s Law Dictionary (6th Edn., pp. 953-54) thus:
" ... The furnishing by one person to another, for his or her support, of the means of living, or food, clothing, shelter, etc. particularly where the legal relation of the parties is such that one is bound to support the other, as between father and child, or husband and wife."
Likewise, the word "support" as defined in the said dictionary (p. 1439) reads as under:
"That which furnishes a livelihood; a source or means of living; subsistence, sustenance, maintenance, or living. In a broad sense the term includes all such means of living as would enable
