Advocates:
['KUNDAN KR JAISWAL', '', 'ACHINTO SEN', 'PANDEY NEERAJ RAI', 'ROHIT RANJAN SINHA', 'MOHIT MANI KISHORE', 'SURAJ KUMAR']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

M.A. No. 167 of 2015

Vashundhara Homes Private Limited through its

Director Sri Dhanesh Kumar Singh, Ranchi..….......

Appellants

Versus

1. Alok Kumar Singh

2. Sardar Bir Inder Singh Randhawa

3. Smt. Jagdeep Randhawa…………

Respondents

……

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen

……

For the Appellants

: Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate

For the Respondents

: -----

……

16/29.11.2021

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.03.2015, by

which the petition filed by the plaintiff-appellant under Order XXXIX Rule

(1) and (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, stood dismissed by the order of

the Sub-Judge-XII, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 212 of 2013.

The plaintiff-appellant admittedly is the tenant. The plaintiff

raised a dispute that he is a tenant under respondent no. 2, whereas Alok

Kumar Singh is claiming to be the landlord and is trying to forcefully

dispossess the plaintiff. As the plaintiff felt threats of dispossession

forcefully, he filed a plaint which was instituted as Title Suit No. 212 of

2013 against Alok Kumar Singh, Sardar Bir Inder Singh Randhawa and

Smt. Jagdeep Randhawa. The plaintiff- appellant in the aforesaid suit

prays for declaration of the fact that he is in possession over the suit

premises as a tenant under the Proforma Defendant No. 2 and also prayed

for mandatory injunction injuncting defendant no. 1 or any person under

him and restraining him from forcibly evicting the plaintiff from the suit

premises without obtaining any decree from the Court of competent

jurisdiction. It is necessary to quote the prayer, which is quoted herein

below:-

“(A) It be declared that the Plaintiff is in peaceful possession over the suit

premises as a tenant under the Proforma Defendant No. 2.

(B) By an order on Mandatory injunction the Defendant no. 1 or persons

claiming through or under him may be restrained from forcibly evicting

the Plaintiff from the suit premises without obtaining any decree from the

Court of competent jurisdiction.

(C) Any other relif/s that the Plaintiff may entitled to.”

The entire relief, which the plaintiff is sought for is against Alok

Kumar Singh. As the plaintiff felt threats of forcefully dispossession, a

petition under Order XXXIX Rule (1) and (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure

-2-

was filed. The said petition was dealt with by the Trial Court and the Trial

Court found that initially a lock was put on the main gate by defendant,

but by intervention of the police, the lock was opened and the key was

handed over to the plaintiff. The trial court also found that the plaintiff is

in possession over the suit premises. These facts are admitted. On the

aforesaid finding, Sub-Judge-XII, Ranchi held that prima-facie there is no

case for passing order of injunction nor there will be irreparable loss if

injunction is not granted and the facts and balance of convenience, for the

purpose of injunction, is also not in favour of the tenant. Thus, the Court

rejected the petition filed under Order XXXIX Rule (1) and (2) of the Code

of Civil Procedure, which led to this appeal.

Another fact which emerges during course of argument is that

defendant no. 1 of Title Suit No. 212 of 2013, has already filed an eviction

suit before the competent authority praying therein to evict the plaintiff

from the suit premises by the process of law. In the said case he claimed

to be the landlord of the appellants. Aforesaid case is numbered as JBC

Case No. 11 of 2018.

In the aforesaid case, the defendant no. 1 of Title Suit No. 212 of

2013 (Instant suit) has made the following prayer:-

“(a) A decree be passed against the defendant for its eviction from the

suit premises and after its eviction the plaintiff may be put in khas

possession of the suit premises.

(b) Cost of the suit.

(c) Any other relief