RANCHI, India, Nov. 28 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Oct. 30:
1. Appellant is the Plaintiff and is aggrieved by dismissal of Eviction Suit No. 22 of 2003, and Eviction Appeal No. 02 of 2013 passed by learned District Judge-XI, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. 2. Suit for eviction was filed by the Appellant-Company under Section 11(i)(a) and 11(i)(c) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982.
3. As per the case of the plaintiff, Defendant was an employee of Tata Steel and Quarter No. P-1/47 situated in P. Road Bistupur, P.S.-Bistupur, TownJamshedpur was allotted to him on payment of rent of Rs. 53.50 vide House Permit No. A/9001 dated 13.06.1981. Earlier the defendant had been allotted different quarter being Quarter No. H6/13 Outer Circle Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur. After allotment of new quarter, the defendant shifted into it w.e.f. 13.06.1981.
4. Defendant was discharged from service on 17.04.1990 and ceased to be under employment, plaintiff-company vide Company Letter No. AC/93292 dated 17.11.1989, filed Eviction Suit No. 111 of 1991 for eviction of the said quarter. The order by which the defendant was discharged from his service was set aside and consequently, Eviction Suit No. 111 of 1991 was withdrawn.
5. However, even otherwise as per the company records, his date of birth is 01.02.1948 and he would have retired from service on 01.02.2008, and therefore was liable to be evicted under Section 11 (1)(a) of the Bihar Building (LR &E) Control Act, 1947.
6. Apart from the formal defence taken, the case of the defendant is that the said quarter had never been allotted by the plaintiff Company on payment of rent. In nutshell, the landlord tenant relationship was denied by the defendant.
7. Learned Trial Court framed the following main issues:
Issue No. V- Whether the suit quarter was allotted to the defendant as an employee of the plaintiff company?
Issue No.VI-Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff Company and defendant therein?
Issue No. VII-Whether the plaintiff Company is entitled for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises on the ground that the defendant ceased to be an employee of the plaintiff Company after his discharge from service by the plaintiff Company on 17.04.1990?
8. Learned Trial Court dismissed the suit, inter alia, on the ground that the landlord-tenant relationship was not established. It refused to admit the permit of allotment (Ext-5) on the ground that it was a carbon copy and the signature of the defendant was not in original.
9. Learned First Appellate Court dismissed the suit by concurring with the finding of learned Trial Court by not accepting Ext.-5 as the letter of allotment.
10.The instant second appeal has been admitted to be heard on the following substantial question of law:
(i) Whether the learned court below while deciding the issue no.5 regarding allotment of suit premises to the defendant/respondent has misdirected themselves and failed to consider that same in a right perspective the Exhibit-5 being carbon copy of the house permit which was duly handed over as an evidence without objection from the side of defendant.
(ii) Whether the relationship of land-lord and tenant are established in view of the provisions made in the definition of Section 2-h of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act,1947."
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=eISc8sUCYnQFBVP%2BVeJCOB61yPV1oLNt1E8fIVKObNWmEd6Lh1nFyjhVILwuOsd3&caseno=SA/459/2017&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010178232017&state_code=7&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
