JUDGMENT :

The case is taken up through Video Conferencing.

2. The present civil revision has been filed for quashing the order dated 06.01.2021 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the House Rent Controller-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Medininagar, Palamau in Eviction Suit No. 07 of 2020-21 whereby the petition filed by the petitioners and the O.P. No.2 under the provisions of Section 21(4) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2011’] for granting leave of the Court to contest the said eviction suit has been rejected directing them to vacate the suit premises within a period of 15 days from the date of the order, failing which they are to be evicted from the suit premises by the administration.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the O.P. No.1 filed Eviction Suit No. 07 of 2020-21 under Section 19(1)(b) & (c) of the Act, 2011 before the House Rent Controller-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Medininagar, Palamau against the petitioners and the O.P. No.2 seeking decree of eviction from the suit premises directing them to vacate the same. The petitioners along with the O.P. No.2 filed an application under Section 21(4) of the Act, 2011 seeking leave of the Court to contest the suit, however, the House Rent Controller-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Medininagar, Palamau vide the impugned order dated 06.01.2021, rejected the leave petition on the ground that the O.P. No.1 had produced registered power of attorney executed in his favour by the original landlords, namely, Praveen Kumar Sahay & Pradip Kumar Sahay and as he was receiving rent since the year 2007, he would be the landlord as per the definition given in Section 2(g) of the Act, 2011, further that the landlord was trying to get the suit premises vacated on the ground of his personal necessity as well as for its repair, however, the petitioners and the O.P. No.2 were refusing to vacate the same. It is further submitted that so called personal necessity of the O.P. No.1 was an artificial necessity and not a bonafide one as he had other vacant accommodations in his possession. The House Rent Controller-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Medininagar, Palamau failed to appreciate that the O.P. No.1 not being an owner of the suit premises could not have maintained the eviction suit as he did not come within the category of the landlord. Section 21(5) of the Act, 2011 provides that the House Rent Controller shall provide leave to the tenant to contest the suit, if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for eviction on the grounds specified in Clauses (c) and (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act, 2011. Bare perusal of the leave petition filed by the petitioners and the O.P. No.2 would show that there are as many as 14 grounds to contest the said eviction suit. The petitioners have clearly made out a case that the O.P. No.1 has no locus standi to maintain the eviction suit on the ground of personal necessity by virtue of the alleged power of attorney. Learned counsel for the petitioners puts reliance on a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.M. Quasim Vs. Manohar Lal Sharma & Ors. reported in (1981) 3 SCC 36 wherein it has been held that a person claiming possession on the ground of his/her reasonable requirement of leased building must show that he/she is the landlord in the sense that he/she is the owner of the building and has a right to occupy the same in his/her own right. It is further submitted that the suit premises was owned by one Anjani Kumar Sahay, who died leaving behind his two sons, namely, Rajendra Prasad and Rudra Kumar Sahay. Thereafter, Rajendra Prasad became the Karta of the family and let out the suit premises to Hira Lal Gupta, the father of the petitioners and the O.P. No.2. Subsequently, due to old age, their father handed over the suit premises to