2025:JHHC:27277 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.1935 of 2024 ---- 1. Mahesh Kumar Poddar, aged about 72 years, S/o Late Mahabir Prasad Poddar, R/o residents of Upper Bazar, Gaushala Road, P.O.-GPO & P.S Kotwali, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) 2. Ajay Kumar Poddar aged about 50 years, S/o Late Om Prakash Poddar, R/O North Market Road, Upper Bazar, P.O.-GPO & P.S-Kotwali, Ranchi (Jharkhand) …. …. Petitioners -Versus- 1. Hemant Kumar Poddar, S/o Late Mahabir Prasad Poddar, resident of Upper Bazar, Gaushala Road, P.O & P.S-Kotwali, District-Ranchi 2. Bishnu Modi, S/o Late Matadin Modi 3. Sohan Modi, S/o Late Matadin Modi 4. Sunita Devi @ Sonia Devi, W/o Late Lalan Modi 5. Tripti Modi 6. Golu Modi 7. Jasu Modi Serial Nos.5 to 7 sons and daughter of Late Lalan Modi, represented through their natural guardian and next best friend their mother Sunita Devi. All are resident of North Market Road, Upper Bazar, P.O-Sadar, P.S Kotwali, District-Ranchi …. …. Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Petitioners : Mr. Manjul Prasad, Senior Advocate : Mr. Akhouri Prakhar Sinha, Adv. For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv. ---- 08/Dated: 09th September, 2025 1. Heard the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 15.03.2024 passed by House Controller-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ranchi in M.P Case No.02 of 2016 whereby and whereunder without disposing our objection under Order XXI, Rule 97-100 of CPC directed for eviction of tenant from premises in question. 3. The description of the property is as follows:- “Shop premises and land situated at Thana No.205, Ward No.5(old), 23(New), Holding No.1066, Plot No.170 area Room 2025:JHHC:27277 2 W.P.C No.1935 of 2024 243.45, Room 222.5, Open Space-10520, Total Area-10985 Sq. Feet.” 4. It appears that a tenant has been inducted by the private respondent namely, Hemant Kumar Poddar and for eviction, a case bearing J.B.C Case No.34 of 2015 has been instituted under Section 19 (a)(c)(d), 21 & 27 of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 before the SDO-cum-Rent Controller, Sadar, Ranchi. 5. It further appears that the order of eviction has been passed by the S.D.M-cum-House Rent Controller, Sadar, Ranchi, vide order dated 18.09.2015. Against the said order, an appeal has been preferred by the tenants being JBC Appeal No.40R15/2015-16 and the said appeal, vide order dated 11.08.2016, has been dismissed. 6. It further appears that the tenants have also preferred revision which has been numbered as JBC Revision Case No.72 of 2016, but the said revision has also been withdrawn, vide order dated 09.03.2021 on the basis of settlement agreement and transferred the possession to the petitioners. 7. It further appears that an application for recall of the order dated 09.03.2021 has been made by the respondents before the Commissioner and the aforesaid order of revisional court has been modified vide order dated 10.08.2021, which reads as under:- Ɋायालय, आयुƅ, दिƗणी छोटानागपुर Ůमंडल, रांची आदेश जे०बी०सी० पुनरीƗण 72/2016 मŐ िदनांक 02.03.2021 को आवेदकों के तरफ से एक सुलहनामा Ůˑुत िकया गया था िजसमŐ आवेदक िवˁु मोदी एवं अजय कु मार पोȞार तथा महेश कु मार पोȞार के हˑाƗर थे। इसी आधार पर इस Ɋायालय Ȫारा इस वाद की कारŊवाई समाɑ की गई थी। अंितम आदेश पाįरत होने के पʮात् िदनांक 12.04.2021 को िवपƗी हेमंत कु मार पोȞार के तरफ से एक आवेदन Ůˑुत िकया गया, िजसमŐ कहा गया िक आवेदक Ȫारा िजन ʩİƅयों के साथ सुलहनामा िकया गया है, वे िवपƗी से संबंिधत नहीं है। Ůʲगत वाद मŐ हेमȶ कु मार िपता ˢ० महावीर पोȞार िवपƗी है, जबिक आवेदकों के Ȫारा महेश कु मार पोȞार एवं अजय कु मार पोȞार के साथ समझौता िकया गया है जो इस वाद के पƗकार नही है। 2025:JHHC:27277 3 W.P.C No.1935 of 2024 आवेदकों के Ȫारा िदनांक 27.02.2021 को आवेदन देकर यह कहा गया था िक Ůʲगत सɼित ˢ० महावीर Ůसाद पोȞार के पुũों के संयुƅ सɼित हœ। आवेदक Ȫारा िवपƗी हेमȶ कु मार पोददार को कभी भी िकराया नहीं िदया गया है। उDŽ Ɋायालय Ȫारा पाįरत आदेश के आलोक मŐ िवदरी लाल' पोȞार Ȫारा पįरसर का िकराया Ůाɑ िकया जाता था तथा िवपƗी हेमȶ कु मार पोद् दार के साथ आवेदकों का मकान मािलक- िकरायेदार का įरʱा नहीं है। उƅ आलोक मŐ उनके Ȫारा यह भी सूिचत िकया गया िक Ůशनगत पįरसर को उनके Ȫारा खाली कर िदया गया है एवं वे इस पुनरीƗण वाद को वापस लेना चाहते है। िवपिƗयों Ȫारा िदये गये आवेदन तथा आवेदकों का दायर सुलहनामा के अवलोकन से यह ˙ʼ होता है िक पįरवाįरक सɼित के बटवारे का िवषय इस वाद मŐ सिɄिहत है। Ůʲगत बाद मŐ माũ मकान का िकराया िनधाŊरण से संबंिधत िबंदु पर ही िवचार िकया जा रहा है। Ɛोिक आवेदकों के Ȫारा Ůʲगत पįरसर खाली कर िदया गया हœ तथा अपने पुनरीƗण आवेदन को वापस लेने का अनुरोध िकया गया है. अत इस पुनरीƗण वाद की कारŊवाई उनके अनुरोध के आधार पर समाɑ की जाती है। िदनांक 09.03.2021 को इस Ɋायालय Ȫारा पाįरत आदेश को तद् नुसार संशोिधत िकया जाता है। लेखािपत एवं संशोिधत । 8. The order of eviction dated 18.09.2015 has attained finality and for execution of the same, an execution case being M.P Case No.02 of 2016 has been initiated, in which, present petitioners filed an application for impleading them as party in M.P Case No.02 of 2016. 9. It further appears that the intervener petition has been rejected and holding that it was not maintainable vide order dated 01.09.2021. The petitioners aggrieved by the aforesaid order, a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2759 of 2022 has been preferred, but the same has been disposed of vide order dated 17.08.2022. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:- “After some argument, Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, does not press the present writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to file an application before the executing court under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC. In view of the said submission, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed with aforesaid liberty. It is, however, observed that if such an application is filed by the petitioners before the executing court, the same will be considered in accordance with law, irrespective of the fact that earlier the intervention application filed by the petitioners was rejected by the said court vide order dated 01.09.2021 passed in M.P. Case No. 02/2016, arising out of J.B.C Case No. 34/2015.” 2025:JHHC:27277 4 W.P.C No.1935 of 2024 10. Thus, it is admitted position of the parties that the tenant in question has been inducted by the private respondent No.1 as a tenant. Now, the writ petitioners want to enter into proceeding claiming themselves as a co-sharer. 11. Under the tenancy law, it is settled principle that once the entry has been made in the property in question through a particular land lord, then he is a landlord for all purposes. His title cannot be questioned by anybody in whatsoever manner. Tenant is under obligation to deliver the possession of the vacant premises to the landlord through whom he has entered into as a tenant and non-else. 12. Of course, if any other parties have any other claim; they can work out their remedies in accordance with law. But no objection can be raised in the execution proceeding. The status of the landlord cannot be changed. 13. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby, dismissed. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Raja/- Uploaded