1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 955 of 2024 1. Ajay Kumar Yadav, aged about 45 years, 2. Bijay Kumar Yadav, aged about 41 years, Both sons of late Karu Gope, resident of Near Annapurna Cold Storage Gali, Malviya Marg, Jhanda Chowk, Hazaribagh, P.O. Hazaribagh, P.S. Sadar, District-Hazaribagh ………………….Petitioners … Versus…. Radha Kumari, wife of Sri Uday Chand Prasad, resident of Malviya Marg, Jhanda Chowk, Hazaribagh, P.O. Hazaribagh, P.S. Sadar, District-Hazaribagh …… Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners : Mr. Ramawatar Choubey, Advocate For the Opp. Party :Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate ………. 04/Dated: 21/01/2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 08.08.2024 passed in Eviction Suit No. 18 of 2009 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-VIII, Hazaribagh. 3. Mr. Ramawatar Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said order is under Section 15 of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent, Eviction) Control Act, 2000 and the learned court without deciding the relationship of the landlord and tenant has passed the said order. He further contended that arrear was directed to be deposited in the treasury w.e.f. 01.01.2007 which is further illegal as execution in the light of Article 110 of Limitation Act has not been considered in view of that the said order may kindly be set aside. 4. Per contra, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the caveator- opposite party opposes the prayer and submits that this is interim arrangement. He submits that the said rent was enhanced to the tune of Rs. 2 900/- w.e.f. 2007. He submits that amendment was allowed by the learned court which was challenged in C.M.P. No. 398 of 2023 which was dismissed as withdrawn. He submits that fruit of arrear is not coming to him directly which has been directed to be deposited in the Nazarat. He submits that there is no illegality in the order. 5. The Court has perused the impugned order dated 08.08.2024 and finds that learned court has dealt with the point of relationship of landlord and tenant and has held that the same will be decided on the basis of evidence led by the parties. If such a dispute was there that can be decided after giving opportunity to both sides. There is no illegality in the said order. 6. The learned court has only directed to deposit the amount with the Nazarat which also suggests that the interest of the petitioners was also taken care of by the learned court. The amendment with regard to increase of rent was allowed on 05.09.2022 which was challenged by the petitioners in C.M.P. No. 398 of 2023 which was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 22.06.2024 with a leave to file additional written statement to the suit. The right of the petitioners has also been taken care of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. 7. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, there is no illegality in the order. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands dismissed. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/