Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) The petitioner, who is the defendant in Eviction Suit No. 43 of 2010, is aggrieved of order dated 20.01.2018 by which his application for a direction upon the plaintiff-Tata Steel Limited to produce a copy of the letter dated 04.07.2009 has been rejected.
(2.) Eviction Suit No. 43 of 2010 has been instituted for a decree for recovery of khas possession of the suit premises after evicting the defendant from the said property. The plaintiff has claimed that it is the owner of Quarter No. L4/8 Road No. 8, Sidhgora, P.S-Sidhgora within the town of Jamshedpur in district-Singhbhum (East). This is the suit schedule property. This property was allotted to the defendant on monthly tenancy on temporary basis, initially for a period of 11 months on payment of monthly rent at the rate of Rs.57.93. At the time of allotment a house permit was prepared on 29.03.2005, in duplicate, the original thereof was handed over to the defendant. The plaintiff has asserted that the defendant has defaulted in payment of rent from the month of April, 2008 and therefore liable to be evicted under Section 11(1)(c)(d)(e) of Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000. The defendant has contested the suit on various grounds; one of the grounds raised by the defendant is that the suit premises was allotted to him in terms of the negotiation arrived at between the parties in Title Suit No. 208 of 1991. Stand taken by defendant is that sometime in the year 1990 the plaintiff tried to dispossess him and others from Tom Basti and a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C was initiated. The matter went to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and finally the plaintiff-company was directed not to disturb the defendant's possession without taking recourse to the due process of law and the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum was appointed receiver by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In paragraph no. 11 of the written statement, the defendant has pleaded that in terms of the compromise between the parties the plaintiff agreed to provide 2000 Sq. ft. land with single storey building constructed thereon to the defendant either at Sidhgora or in Agrico area, if the defendant agrees to vacate the property involved in Title Suit No. 208 of 1991. Further stand taken by the defendant is that in pursuance of the aforesaid agreement the plaintiff-company has provided accommodation at Quarter No. 4L/8 situated at Road No. 8, Sidhgora.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that not only the plaintiff's witness namely, A.K. Ojha who has been examined as P.W. 1 has spoken about a written agreement between the parties, letter dated 04.07.2009 which also refers to the settlement arrived at between the parties would be necessary to adjudicate the real dispute involved in the suit.;