SANGEET DALMIA Vs. RAJ KISHORE SABOO
LAWS(JHAR)-2018-10-143
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on October 24,2018

Sangeet Dalmia Appellant
VERSUS
Raj Kishore Saboo Respondents




JUDGEMENT

Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.)The petitioner, who is tenant, has instituted Title Suit No. 414 of 2013 for a decree for declaration that he is entitled to continue in peaceful possession of the tenanted premises till he is removed by virtue of a court's decree. He has also sought a decree for injunction against the defendant-landlord restraining him from his forceful eviction from the suit premises. He is aggrieved of order dated 09.05.2017 by which his application for impleading the Ranchi Municipal Corporation has been rejected.
(2.)The petitioner has pleaded that he is one of the partners in the partnership firm-Krishi Vikas which deals in sale of fertilizer and other items related to agriculture. The shop rooms are occupied by the partnership firm and the adjoining land belongs to Ram Niwas Sabu and the defendant being the only son of the said Ram Niwas Sabu is receiving rent for the tenanted premises from the plaintiff. In paragraph no. 4 of the plaint, the plaintiff has asserted that rent for the tenanted premises has not been fixed and consolidated rent as and when demanded by the defendant is paid to him. In paragraph no. 5 of the plaint, the plaintiff, however, claims that the prevalent monthly rent is Rs. 10,000/- which is generally paid in advance through cheque for several months on oral instruction of the defendant and rent till September 2013 has been paid to him. During pendency of the suit a notice was served upon the plaintiff by letter dated 12.01.2015 for illegal construction over government land which was replied by the plaintiff on 17.01.2015. Thereafter, an application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC was filed by the plaintiff for addition of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation through its administrator. The reason why the plaintiff wants to implead the Ranchi Municipal Corporation is that the plan sanctioned by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation for construction of a building showing the suit land as set-back, according to the plaintiff is illegal.
(3.)Mr. Praveen Jaiswal, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of the suit the Ranchi Municipal Corporation has issued notice to the plaintiff for vacating the suit premises (Annexure-4). On a pointed query from the Court whether the notice issued by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation has been challenged by the petitioner or not, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said notice has not been challenged though the notice issued by the Circle Officer has been challenged by filing another writ petition.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.