AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners are aggrieved of order dated 27.07.2012 passed in Title Suit No.57 of 2008 by which application under section 15 of Jharkhand
Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2000 has been allowed.
The petitioners are defendants in Title Suit No.57 of 2008. The plaintiff has pleaded that she is owner of the suit property and in support of this
plea she has produced a copy of the original Khatiyan pertaining to the suit land. The trial Judge in its order dated 27.07.2012 has observed that the records would reveal that the defendants are illegal occupants of the suit land since 1981. Merely referring to the legal notice issued to the defendants for payment of arrears of rent @ Rs.3,000/- per month and observing that the defendants have failed to disclose how they have come in possession over the suit land, the trial Judge has allowed the application under section 15 of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control
Act, 2000.
Apparently, approach of the trial Judge was erroneous. Section 2(f ) of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2000
defines landlord. The expression “Landlord” includes the person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive, the rent of the
building, whether on his own account or on behalf of another, or on account or on behalf of for the benefit of himself and others or as an agent,
trustee, executor, administrator, receiver, guardian or who would so receive the rent, to be entitled to receive the rent, if the building were let to a
tenant. The important expression in Section 2(f ) is “the building is let-out to a tenant”. Merely because the plaintiff claims that she is owner of
the suit land and the trial Judge has observed that the defendants are illegal occupants of the suit land, the defendants do not become tenants to the
plaintiff. The plaintiff has prima-facie failed to establish landlord-tenant relationship between the parties by producing evidence at the stage of section 15 of the 2000 Act.
In the above facts, finding serious infirmity in the impugned order dated 27.07.2012 it is set-aside, however, it is made clear that interference with
the impugned order dated 27.07.2012 shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, which the parties may establish during the trial by leading evidence.
The writ petition stands allowed, in the aforesaid terms.