2025:JHHC:10777-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 406 of 2024 --- Malti Gupta, aged about 50 years, wife of Mohan Sah, resident of 361, Mihijam Road, Jamtara, J.P.Nagar, Dhandhra, Ward No.14, P.O. – Jamtara, P.S. Jamtara, District- Jamtara, Jharkhand. .....Appellant Versus 1. Shashikant Gupta, aged about 43 years, son of Swaminath Gupta, resident of Mihijam Road, P.O.- Jamtara, P.S.. Jamtara, District Jamtara, Jharkhand. 2. The State Of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Project Building Dhurwa, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Dhurwa,, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, having its office at Dumka, P.O., Dumka, P.S. Dumka, District- Dumka, Jharkhand. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara, having its office at Jamtara P.O. Jamtara, P.S.- Jamtara, District- Jamtara, Jharkhand. 5. Sub Divisional Officer, Jamtara, having its office at Jamtara, P.O. Jamtara,P.S.- Jamtara, District- Jamtara, Jharkhand. 6. Circle Officer, Jamtara, having its office at Jamtara, P.O. Jamtara, P.S.- Jamtara, District- Jamtara, Jharkhand. .....Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --- For the Appellant : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Amitabh Prasad, Advocate Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate For the Resp.-State : M/s. Manish Kumar, Sr.S.C.-II Nirupama, A.C. to Sr.S.C.-II For the Resp. No. 1 : M/s. Amritansh Vats, Amartya Choubey, Advs. --- 05/ Dated: 07.04.2025 I.A. No. 8446 of 2024 1. This application is allowed since it is not opposed by the counsel for respondents. 2025:JHHC:10777-DB L.P.A. No. 406 of 2024 2. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 15th May, 2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 1572 of 2024. 3. The appellant herein is the 6th respondent in the said writ petition. The appellant had initiated proceedings under the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (for short ‘the Act’) against the respondent No.1 for eviction from the subject property before the Controller constituted under the Act, who had directed the eviction of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent challenged the same by way of appeal under the said statute which was also dismissed. The 1st respondent filed a revision before the Revisional Authority which is now pending consideration before the said authority. 4. The 1st respondent next filed the writ petition before the Single Judge alleging that the appellant had filed a suit for declaration of her right, title and interest in the subject property and for recovery of possession being Original Suit No. 57 of 2019 before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division-I, Jamtara against the 1st respondent, that during the pendency of the said suit, the proceedings under the Act were initiated and the suit had since been dismissed for default, though steps are said to be taken for restoration of the same and therefore, sought stay of execution of 2025:JHHC:10777-DB the orders of eviction passed by the Primary Authority under the Act which were confirmed by the Appellate Authority. 5. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order entertained the writ petition and held as under: “Considering the factual position, in the interest of justice, it would be proper that if a restoration application is filed and if at all the said suit is restored, the same should be decided first. The impugned order of eviction dated 12.02.2021 (Annexure-6) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamtara in Eviction Suit Case No. 01 of 2021 and the appellate order dated 19.01.2024 (Annexure-9) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara in H.R.C.A. Case No. 01/2021-22 will not be given effect to, till the final judgment and decree is passed in Original Suit No. 57 of 2019, pending before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, I, Jamtara. The parties will proceed accordingly, as per the judgment passed in Original Suit No. 57 of 2019, pending before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, I, Jamtara.” This appeal is preferred against the said order. 6. Counsel for the appellant contends that the concept of ownership in a landlord-tenant litigation governed by Rent Control Laws has to be distinguished from the one in a title suit and inquiry as to title to the property is not to be done in proceedings under the Act and existence of relationship of landlord and tenant is sufficient for the authority under the Act to proceed with the matter. He also contends that when the revision filed by the 1st respondent is pending consideration before the Revisional Authority under the said Act, the learned Single Judge erred in entertaining the writ petition and granting relief to the 1st respondent. 7. Counsel for the 1st respondent contended that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellant and 2025:JHHC:10777-DB the 1st respondent and that the proceedings under the Act are not maintainable and therefore, the 1st respondent was justified in approaching this Court for relief in writ petition. 8. We agree with the submission of the counsel for the appellant that in proceedings for eviction like those under the Act, existence of relationship of landlord and tenant is relevant and adjudication of title is not warranted. The question of title of the property should not be gone into or examined in an eviction suit. (See Ranbir Singh v, Asharfi Lal (1995) 6 SCC 580], Tribhuvanshankar Vs. Amrutlal[(2014) 2 SCC 788] and Life Insurance Corporation of India Vrs. India Automobiles and Co. And others [(1990) 4 SCC 286]). 9. Since the appellant had succeeded before the Primary Authority as well as the First Appellate Authority under the Act and the revision filed against the said orders is pending before the Revisional Authority under the Act, it is open to the 1st respondent to pursue the same and get appropriate interim or final relief therein. Having invoked the revisional jurisdiction under the Act, it was not open to the 1st respondent to file a writ petition in this Court and seek to circumvent the eviction orders granted against him by the authorities under the Act. 10. Therefore, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the appeal is allowed; the Revisional Authority is directed to decide the revision expeditiously in accordance with 2025:JHHC:10777-DB law after hearing both sides or at least decide the stay application filed in the revision filed by the 1st respondent within two weeks after hearing both sides. (M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) jk/vikas