- (1.) The matter has been heard with the consent of learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing. There is no complaint about any audio and visual quality. I.A. No.26 of 2021 Mr. Vimal Kirti Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.5 submits that he has filed interlocutory application for acceptance of his Vakalatnama. Mr. P.K. Bhowmik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants-writ petitioners has raised oral objection to the said interlocutory application. Mr. Deepak Kr. Dubey, learned AC to AAG-II appearing for the State as also Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-RMC, have raised no objection. Considering the reason assigned in the interlocutory application and on deliberating upon the factual aspect as also considering the fact that the respondent no.5 was party to the writ petition and the appellants have impleaded him as party respondent to this memo of appeal, therefore, the respondent no.5 has a right to address the Court and for that, he has filed the Vakalatnama, we deem it fit and proper to allow the instant interlocutory application. Accordingly, Vakalatnama filed on behalf of respondent no.5 is accepted. In the result, I.A. No.26 of 2021 is allowed. Office is directed to keep the same on record. L.P.A. No.201 of 2018 The instant intra-court appeal is directed against the order/judgment dated 27.03.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3279 of 2017, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition has been disposed of with the consent of the parties with the following observations and directions:- (i) The respondent No.5 shall provide suitable space to the petitioners in the new building premises within a period of six weeks from today. (ii) The petitioner Nos.2 & 3 shall forthwith sign the MOU with the respondent No.5 and voluntarily vacate the shops presently occupied by them positively within a period of four weeks after execution of the MOU. (iii) The respondent No.5 shall ensure that after execution of the MOU with the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3, they are suitably adjusted in the new building premises without any undue delay so as not to cause harm to their business in the transition period. (iv) If any dispute arises with regard to overlapping of apportionment in the financial liability between the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 with regard to adjustment of existing tenants including the petitioners as per the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement dated 30.03.2006 executed between the husband of the respondent No.4 and the respondent No.5, they are at liberty to take appropriate recourse against each other in accordance with law. (v) After the petitioners vacate the old shops premises as per the aforesaid observations and directions, the Ranchi Municipal Corporation is free to demolish the same.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are required to be referred herein which reads as hereunder:- The writ petitioners claimed to be tenants over the land pertaining to Holding No.35(old) corresponding to new Holding Nos.1164, 1165, 1165A, 1165B, 1166 & 1167 being portion of M.S. Plot Nos.1427 & 1429 under Ward No.17 of Ranchi Municipal Corporation situated at Lalpur Chowk, Ranchi, popularly known as Dey Lodge, Ranchi and are running shops therein. The owner and landlord, Amal Chandra Dey and Gautam Dey (now both deceased), the husband of the respondent No.4, have entered into a Development Agreement on 30.03.2006 with the respondent no.5 for construction of a Multi-Storied Commercial Complex. The aforesaid Development Agreement accepts the tenancy of the writ petitioners along with 28 others. In the Development Agreement, the condition has been appended by making a provision for adjustment of the tenants in the said Complex after completion of the construction. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that the owner (respondent no.4) as well as the developer (respondent no.5) with the extraneous reason and only to vacate the tenants from the premises in question had donated about three Khatas of land in favour of the respondent no.3 (Ranchi Municipal Corporation) over which, the shops and rooms of the writ petitioners and other tenants are situated. After the death of Amal Chandra Dey and his son Gautam Dey, the respondent no.4 widow of Gautam Dey is only surviving heir and as such, the absolute owner of the premises in question. The further grievance of the writ petitioners is that a news has been published in the local Daily Dainik Bhaskar on 07.06.2017 that the Ranchi Municipal Corporation is taking steps for removal of encroachment and taking possession of the donated land for the purpose of widening of the road and has given the details of the action to be taken phase-wise in the township of Ranchi which includes the area over which the shops of the writ petitioners are situated. The writ petitioners, therefore, had approached to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No.3279 of 2017 mainly on the ground that the tactics which has been adopted by the respondents for evicting the writ petitioners from the premises is only to frustrate the law applicable for eviction i.e., the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011. The respondent no.3 has appeared before the writ Court and taken plea that the action purported to be taken as has been published in the Daily Newspaper dated 07.06.2017 is in compliance of the order of this court passed in W.P.(PIL) No.3072 of 2015 (Court on its own Motion Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) , wherein, direction for the purpose of removing the encroachment and widening of the road has been given. The respondent no.5 has appeared to contest the case by filing the counter affidavit stating therein that the writ petitioners have already lost in the Civil Suit being Title Suit No.176 of 2006, wherein, the injunction petition has also been dismissed, against which, an appeal was preferred, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, the writ petitioners have filed the writ petition for the aforesaid cause of action is only to misuse the process of Court. It has been stated therein that all the tenants including the writ petitioners have entered into a memorandum of mutual understanding with the respondent no.5, wherein, mutually it was decided that the tenants should be allotted space equal to the space previously occupied by each of them in the newly constructed building at a very concessional rate. According to the respondent no.5, the writ petitioners also agreed to such mutual understanding and had accepted and signed the said MOU. Out of total of about 29 tenants who signed the said Memoranda of Mutual Understanding, all the tenants barring the present writ petitioners, have been duly allotted spaces by the respondent no.5 in terms of their respective Memorandum of Understanding. However, the writ petitioners refused to adhere the terms of their Memoranda and refused to accept the spaces allotted to them. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter and considering the agreement in between the learned counsel for the parties has disposed of the writ petition, which is under challenge in the instant appeal.
(3.) Mr. P.K. Bhowmik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants-writ petitioners assisted by Mr. Susahavan Bhowmik, has submitted that there is no consent given by the writ petitioners and as such, disposal of the writ petition on the basis of the mutual agreement in between the parties is error on fact, basis upon which, the instant intracourt appeal has been filed.;