2025:JHHC:19343 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Revision No. 3 of 2022 Prabhat Jaiswal, aged about 59 years, son of Mahendra Prasad Jaiswal, resident of Mohalla-Kund, P.O. & P.S. – Medininagar, District – Palamau. ….. Defendant / Petitioner Versus Abhishek Raj, son of Late Thakur Mahendra Nath Sinha, resident of Church Road, Daltonganj, P.O. & P.S. - Medininagar, District – Palamau. ….. Plaintiff / Opp. Party --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate. Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For the Opp. Party : Mr. Sudhir Kr. Sharma, Advocate. Mr. Anish Kumar Mishra, Advocate. --------- Order No. 13/Dated: 16th July, 2025 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. The instant civil revision filed under Section 21(8) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control, Act, 2011 is directed against the order dated 01.02.2022 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Palamau in Eviction Appeal No. XV-47/2020-21, whereby and whereunder the order dated 04.03.2021 passed by House Controller-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Medininagar, Palamau in Eviction Suit No. 02 of 2018-2019 has been set aside with direction for eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party / plaintiff filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner / defendant 2025:JHHC:19343 2 from the suit premises, measuring an area of 270 sq. ft., portion of plot no. 626 corresponding to Khas Mahal Holding No. 394 in Mohalla – Amla Toli within District – Palamau situated on the ground floor on the ground of personal necessity under Section 19(1) (c) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control, Act, 2011. The petitioner / defendant appeared and filed an application under Section 21 (4) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control, Act, 2011 seeking leave to contest the aforesaid suit inter alia on the ground that the suit is not maintainable and there is no material on record to suggest personal necessity that too reasonable and bonafide personal necessity of the applicant. The House Controller- cum-Sub Divisional Officer, after considering the oral and documentary evidence filed by the parties in respect of the suit premises, recorded specific finding that there is lack of reasonable and good faith of personal necessity in favour of plaintiff and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff / opposite party. The plaintiff / opposite party filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, which has been wrongly allowed without appreciating the materials available on record, which suffers from jurisdictional error as well as the genuineness of the claim of applicant. 4. It is further submitted that as per provisions of Section 21(8) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control, Act, 2011, no appeal or second appeal is amenable to such order and thus 2025:JHHC:19343 3 the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau has no jurisdiction to entertain such appeal, rather a revision application has to be filed by the landlord / plaintiff. 5. It is further submitted that there was objective finding of court of first instance based on materials that the personal necessity claimed by the plaintiff was mere his desire and it was not bonafide and reasonable. Hence, his prayer was declined by the court of first instance, as such, the impugned order is not legally sustainable and fit to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently refuted the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the law is well settled that whenever the application for eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity is dismissed by the first instance court, no revision lie, rather an appeal may be preferred. 7. In this regard, learned counsel for the opposite party has placed reliance upon the reported judgment in the case of Mostt. Sarswati Devi & Others Vs. Kunti Devi & Another reported in [1991 (2) BLJ 216] and in the case of Md. Jainul Ansari & Others Vs. Md. Khalil reported in [1990 (2) BLJ 601]. In the case of Mostt. Sarswati Devi (Supra), it has been held that the provisions of sub Section 7 of Section 14 of Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2025:JHHC:19343 4 1982 now Section 21 (8) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control, Act, 2011 bar an appeal from a decree dismissing a suit for eviction cannot be upheld. That provision, in our opinion has no bearing on the question as to whether an appeal or revision lies from a decree passed in a suit under Section 14 of the Act. That provision merely lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or any other law, the Court while hearing a suit under this section shall follow the practice and procedure of a Court of Small Causes including the recording of evidence. That provision does not deal with the remedy available to a party which may be aggrieved by the decree passed by the court trying a suit under Section 14 of the Act. Sub-section (8) of Section 14 of the Act deals with the question of appeal and revision. The Full Bench, after consideration the provisions of sub-section (8), has held that the provision does not bar an appeal from a decree dismissing a plaintiff’s suit for eviction. We see no cogent reason to take a view different from that taken by the Full Bench in CR 45 of 1988 (R). 8. It has further submitted that the learned appellate court has very wisely and aptly recorded finding on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties that there is reasonable and bonafide need of the plaintiff / appellant (opposite party herein). There is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order and the plaintiff / appellant (opposite party herein) has also been handed over the vacant possession of the suit 2025:JHHC:19343 5 premises after evicting the defendant / respondent (petitioner herein). Therefore, this revision is fit to be dismissed. 9. I have gone through the impugned orders passed by the court of first instance as well as the appellate court. The question of jurisdiction of the appellate court i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau has been set at rest by the ratio of judgment relied upon by the opposite party i.e. Mostt. Sarswati Devi (Supra) and Md. Jainul Ansari (Supra). 10. It appears that the petitioner was inducted in the suit premises only for 05 years through registered lease deed from 01.08.2015 to 31.07.2020 and the period of lease has been terminated due to efflux of time. The suit premises is only one room, measuring an area of 18 ft. x 15 ft., equal to 1 ½ decimal, let out on monthly rental of Rs. 3,000/-. 11. It is also obvious that the lease hold property belongs to Khas Mahal Holding No. 394, Municipal Holding No. 1465, which was leased in favour of ancestor of plaintiff namely Thakur Bhola Nath Sinha on 10.07.1929. Thereafter, the lease was applied to be renewed in the name of Abhishek Raj, which is still pending. It is also apparent that the court of first instance had passed the order of rejection of the application of landlord / plaintiff without providing any opportunity of adducing evidence. 2025:JHHC:19343 6 12. It appears that the appellate court has recorded sound reasons while allowing the appeal and set aside the order passed by the House Controller-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Medininagar, Palamau, particularly taking view that lease period has expired and not renewed for further period in favour of tenant (petitioner) and the appellant / plaintiff reasonably and bonafidely requires the tenanted premises for his own business i.e. use and occupation. 13. In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons, I do not find any legal substance in the point of argument raised on behalf of the petitioner and no merits in this revision, which stands dismissed. 14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Sunil/