1 (2026:JHHC:620-DB) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A.No. 752 of 2025 1. Mahesh Kumar Poddar, aged about 72 years, son of Late Mahabir Prasad Poddar, resident of Upper Bazar, Gaushala Road, P.O.& P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi 2. Ajay Kumar Poddar, aged about 50 years, son of Late Om Prakash Poddar, resident of North Market Road, Upper Bazar, P.O.- GPO, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi …. Appellants Versus 1. Hemant Kumar Poddar, son of Late Mahabir Prasad Poddar, resident of Upper Bazar, Gaushala Road, P.O. & P.S.-Kotwali, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand 2. Bishnu Modi, son of Late Matadin Modi, resident of North Market Road, Upper Bazar, P.O. & P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi 3. Sohan Modi, son of Late Matadin Modi, resident of North Market Road, Upper Bazar, P.O.& P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand 4. Sunita Devi @ Sonia Devi, wife of Late Lalan Modi, resident of North Market Road, Upper Bazar, P.O. & P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand 5. Tripti Modi, daughter of Late Lalan Modi, represented through natural guardian i.e. mother Sunita Devi, resident of North Market Road, Upper Bazar, P.O. & P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand 6. Golu Modi, son of Late Lalan Modi, represented through natural guardian i.e. mother Sunita, resident of North Market Road, Upper Bazar, P.O. & P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand 7. Jasu Modi, son of Late Lalan Modi, represented through natural guardian i.e. mother Sunita Devi, resident of North Market Road, Upper Bazar, P.O. & P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand …. Respondents ------ CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ------ For the Appellants: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate ----- 2/ 12.01.2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. Prime facie, we feel that these proceedings constitute an abuse of the judicial process. However, apart from this prima facie observation, 2 there are other legal grounds not to interfere with the impugned order dated 09.09.2025 made by the learned Single Judge. 3. The record discloses that the suit premises were let out by respondent Hemant Kumar Poddar (Hemant). Hemant, then, instituted eviction proceedings against the tenant, which were allowed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate-cum-House Rent Controller by order dated 18.09.2015. The tenant’s appeal was dismissed on 11.08.2016. The tenant’s revision was withdrawn. 4. The application for recall of the order of 09.03.2021, withdrawing the tenant’s revision application, was also disposed of with a slight modification. The modification being that the issues of inter se disputes between Hemant and the present appellants remain open. 5. The appellants, who claim to be co-sharers along with Hemant, attempted to intervene in the proceedings, and this intervention application was rejected, as not maintainable. The appellants then preferred W.P.(C) No. 2759 of 2022, and even the same was disposed of by order of 17.08.2022, because the appellants did not press the said writ petition, but sought liberty to file an application before the Executing Court under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC. 6. The learned Single Judge has now held that it is impermissible for the appellants to intervene or claim any benefits in the proceedings between Hemant (landlord) and the tenants. The learned Single Judge has also clarified that if any other parties have claims, they can always pursue their remedies in accordance with the law. But no objection can be raised in execution proceedings, nor can attempts be made to change the status of the landlord. 3 7. From the above, it is apparent that the premises in question were let out by Hemant to the tenants. Therefore, at least for the purposes of the rent control legislation, Hemant was the proper relator to institute the eviction proceedings. Hemant instituted such eviction proceedings and obtained a decree of eviction against the tenants, which has attained finality. The present appellants had no business to seek intervention in these proceedings, and such an attempt does not appear to be innocuous. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants states that the suit was instituted in 2023, and there is some interim order. If this is correct, then that is all the more reason why the appellants should not have sought intervention in these proceedings, only to complicate matters, if not to assist the tenant or to settle their dispute with the statutory landlord. We see no good ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in this matter. Allowing the present appellants to intervene in the tenancy proceedings, which had attained finality, would not have been proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. Accordingly, we see no merit in this Letters Patent Appeal, and we dismiss the same. 10. However, at the persuasion of the learned counsel for the appellants, we refrain from imposing any costs. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) January 12, 2026 Ranjeet / R.Kr. Uploaded on 20.01.2026