2025:JHHC:34783 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 173 of 2008 Rajiv Kumar, Son of Late Mahabir Ram, by faith Hindu, by occupation business, aged about 34 years, carrying on business in the name and style of Fashion Club, at Mohalla Sadar Bazar, P.O. and P.S.- Chaibasa, District- West Singhbhum. … … Appellant Versus Deepika Modak, daughter of Ashok Modak at present resident of Behind SanjevNetralay and Dental Care Centre P.C. Birua Path, Chaibasa, P.O. and P.S.- Chaibasa, District- Singhbhum west … … Respondent --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Dr. M.K. Laik, Sr. Advocate : Mrs. Manjusri Patra, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate : Mr. Kanishka Deo, Advocate --- 21/20.11.2025 I.A. No. 10132 of 2025, I.A. No. 2717 of 2008, I.A. No. 9241 of 2022, I.A. No. 9670 of 2023and I.A. No. 9662 of 2023 1. Learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the matter arises out of dispute between the landlord and tenant and they have settled the dispute outside the Court and accordingly, a joint compromise petition has been filed being I.A. No. 10132 of 2025. The appellant herein is the tenant with respect to the suit property. They submit that the appeal be dispose of in terms of the compromise. 2. They submit that if the compromise petition is allowed,I.A. No. 2717 of 2008 for adducing evidence need not be allowed. 3. They have also submitted that another interlocutory application being I.A. No. 9670 of 2023 seeking direction for payment of arrears of rent also need not be allowed and arrears of rent, if any, has been taken care of by the join compromise. I.A. No. 9241 of 2022 and I.A. No. 9662 of 2023 4. So far as I.A. No. 9241 of 2022 and I.A. No. 9662 of 2023 are concerned, they submit that these are interlocutory applications, whereby the 2025:JHHC:34783 2 interveners are seeking intervention in the proceedings by claiming right, title, interest etc. over the suit property. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord has submitted that the matter in the present case essentially arises out of landlord-tenant relationship. If the persons seeking intervener have any grievance, they have a remedy as per law. She submits that those interlocutory applications may not be allowed. 6. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the interveners in these two interlocutory applications has submitted that the respondent in the present case is the daughter of the landlord and has been substituted. They have submitted that since the original plaintiff severed all ties with the present respondent, therefore, the present respondent does not have any right, title, interest with respect to the suit premises and these two interveners claim to have right, title, interest etc. with respect to the suit premises. However, they submit that if this court is not inclined to allow the interlocutory applications seeking intervention, it may be observed that the right of the interveners be kept open. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the dispute between the plaintiff and the original dependent arose out of landlord-tenant relationship and the suit was decreed. The tenant lost in both the courts and ultimately, the second appeal has been filed and now, it is also not in dispute that the respondent herein was substituted in the executing Court and also before this Court. 8. Considering the nature of the dispute involved in the present case, this court is not inclined to allow the intervention applications wherein the interveners are seeking right, title, interest etc. with respect to the suit property as their intervention is beyond the scope of the suit itself. However, their right, if any, with respect to the suit property, will remain unaffected by this order. 9. I.A. No. 9241 of 2022 and I.A. No. 9662 of 2023 are accordingly disposed of. 10. So far as I.A. No. 10132 of 2025 is concerned, since the appellant and the respondent have settled their dispute outside the Court and have filed 2025:JHHC:34783 3 joint compromise petition, this Second Appeal is disposed of in terms of compromise whose terms and conditions have been mentioned in paragraph- 5 of the interlocutory application, which is quoted as under: - “para-5. It is stated that during pendency of the appeal, good senses have prevailed between the parties and the parties have agreed to settle the dispute on the following terms and conditions: - (i) The appellant shall deposit up-to-date rent if not already deposed in the learned Court below and the respondent shall withdraw the entire arrears of rent which has been accumulated and deposited in the learned Court below. (ii) Henceforth, the appellant shall pay rent @Rs.4,000/- per month for the suit premises which comprised of a shop admeasuring 10ft x 18ft and the said rent would be enhanced from time to time @ 10% on expiry of each three years. (iii) The appellant shall be permitted to use the room measuring 10’ *12’ standing at the back portion of the shop in dispute including passage (galli) for the use of the courtyard and the land adjacent to/back portion of the shop, for which he shall pay an additional rent of Rs.3,000/- per month which is also subject to enhancement of 10% on expiry of each three years. (iv) The appellant shall henceforth pay the rent directly to the substituted respondent, namely, Dipika Modak by 10th of every month and the appellant shall be responsible for maintenance of the suit premises along with the backyard of the shop and the courtyard and the building. (v) In the event the appellant defaults in making payment of rent consecutively for two months, the respondent shall be at a liberty to initiate fresh suit for his eviction. (vi) In view of the compromise, henceforth the appellant shall be making payment of rent of Rs. 4,000/-+Rs.3,000/- (total Rs.7,000/-) per month which is subject to enhancement @ 10% on expiry of each three years. (vii) The appellant shall be permitted to continue with the electricity connection which he has obtained in his name. 2025:JHHC:34783 4 However, he undertakes to pay the energy charges regularly and further undertakes not to put the premises in any use which is otherwise not permissible in the eyes of law. (viii) The appellant shall not make any material change in this main structure of the suit premises” 11. I.A. No. 10132 of 2025 is accordingly disposed of . 12. Since this Second Appeal is disposed of in terms of compromise, I.A. No. 2717 of 2008 for adducing evidence is closed. 13. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. 14. Let a decree be prepared in terms of the compromise as recorded above. 15. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/Fax’. (AnubhaRawatChoudhary, J.) Dated:20.11.2025 Simran/ Uploaded on:- 22.11.2025