Order In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, who is tenant of respondent no.4, on the ground floor of holding no. 597/505 plot no.834 Frazer Road, Patna, is aggrieved by the action of the Patna Regional Development Authority (in short "PRDA") whereby a plan was approved under section 37(2) of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1981 (in short the Act) in favour of respondent no.4, to raise construction after demolishing the holding in question. 2. The petitioner does not claim to be the owner of the building. His only grievance is that the respondents cannot be permitted to demolish, the structure without taking recourse to the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act (in short BBC Act). The impugned action under section 54 of the Act cannot be used as handy substitute for eviction of the petitioner. Reference in this regard was made to a decision of the apex Court in the case of Ram Prasad Narayan Sahi and another vs. The State of Bihar and others ( AIR 1953 SC 215 ). 3. The contention is since occupancy of the petitioner in a portion of the building is valid and justified, entire action of the respondent authority either to approve the plan for the new building or demolish the old one is illegal and without jurisdiction. A bare reference to the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 37 of the Act would indicate if the proposed erection or alteration of the building is in contravention of the provisions of any other law, the Vice-Chairman of the PRDA has to refuse sanction. Since the right of the petitioner is protected under the provisions of the BBC Act, the sanction of the plan for erection of the new building after demolition of the structure in question would certainly be in contravention of the provisions of the said Act. 4. The respondents on the other hand, have filed counter affidavits and submitted since the petitioner has already filed 1.8.76 of 1997 before the Civil Court for the same relief, he is not entitled to maintain the writ application. It was further contended that in fact the structure under occupation of the petitioner is situated within the front set back area of the building for which the plan was duly sanctioned by the PRDA. It was further contended that in fact the structure under occupation of the petitioner is situated within the front set back area of the building for which the plan was duly sanctioned by the PRDA. That apart, averments have also been made on behalf of the PRDA that no plan was previously sanctioned for the old building in question. Therefore, due to such irregularities, the authorities have full jurisdiction to take steps for demolition of the building. It has also been contended that major portion of the building has already been demolished and no objection whatsoever was raised by the other tenants. 5. From the materials on record, there appears no dispute that respondent no.4 after demolishing the old buildings, standing over the said plot, raised a multistoreyed building known as "Capital Tower Block-A". Adjacent south of the said building extending upto Frazer Road, he is raising another building after getting proper approval and sanction of the plan. The building in which the petitioner is a tenant at the ground floor is lying within the area of front set back. This is not in dispute that two floors of this building have already been demolished. But because of the petitioner's objection, the part of the building at the ground floor in which he is a tenant, is still to be demolished. 6. Keeping in mind the facts noticed above, a question arises whether the Vice-Chairman of the PRDA while exercising powers under section 37 of the Act to grant sanction for erection or addition or alteration of the building or while taking steps for demolition of any building as per the provisions of section 54 of the Act, is required to give notice to a tenant of such building. 7. According to the petitioner until and unless he is evicted by an order under the provisions of the BBC Act, neither the landlord nor the authority of the PRDA can be permitted to demolish the building. Because in absence of a decree of the civil court for eviction, such action of the respondents to dispossess the petitioner by demolishing the structure would be against the well known norms settled by various decisions of this Court as well as Supreme Court. Reference in this regard was made to the case of Ram Prasad Narayan Sahi and another vs. The State of Bihar & ors. Reference in this regard was made to the case of Ram Prasad Narayan Sahi and another vs. The State of Bihar & ors. (supra) and also a decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Hindustan Petroleum corporation Ltd. and another vs. The State of Bihar & ors., 1996 (2) PLJR 621 . 8. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondents, stand was taken that a bare reference to the entire scheme of the Act and the provisions made thereunder would indicate that a tenant of a building has no locus standi to challenge the order of the Vice-Chairman under section 37 of the Act while granting sanction for erection and construction of suet, building. Similar is the position when steps are taken for demolition of the building under the provisions of section 54 of the Act. In support of the contention, reliance was made to a decision of this Court in the case of, Sri Krishnapuri Boring Road Vyapari Sangh through its President Sri Sanjay Kumar and another vs. The State of Bihar and others, 1995 (1) PLJR 418 as also certain decisions of the Calcutta High Court in the cases of Kumuda Sundari Properties (Private) Ltd and others vs. Namdung Tea Co. Ltd. (AIR 1986 Calcutta 266) and OM Prakash Saxena and another vs. Dhirendra Nath Nag and others (AIR 1998 Calcutta 201). In my view, having regard to the peculiar facts of this case and ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Sri Krishnapuri Boring Road Vyapari Sangh through its President Sri Sanjay Kumar and another vs. The State of Bihar & others (supra), the stand of the respondent appears justified. A tenant of such a building which had no sanctioned plan, would not be entitled to raise objection, if steps are taken for demolition. The ratio of the case of M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (supra) may not be applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case, the tenant had raised certain construction after necessary permission of the competent authority. The company had also installed a petrol pump after proper sanction of the different authority including the District Magistrate. Therefore, in these background, the Court found that steps taken by the PRDA for demolition of the structure without notice to such a tenant was illegal and arbitrary. The company had also installed a petrol pump after proper sanction of the different authority including the District Magistrate. Therefore, in these background, the Court found that steps taken by the PRDA for demolition of the structure without notice to such a tenant was illegal and arbitrary. This is not the case of the petitioner before me that he had also raised any construction after getting approval of the competent authority. The decision in the case of "M/s. Hindusthan Petroleum" therefore must be read and understood in the background of the facts of the said case. 10. Besides what has been noticed above, otherwise also it appears not probable to accept the contention of the petitioner that the proposed demolition of the building is only a device to evict him. Because from the averments brought on the record, it is apparent that the respondent no.4 in order to raise a multi storeyed building had got the plan sanctioned by the PRDA. Since the old structure has been found within the front set back area, to comply with the mandatory requirements, the respondents have no option but to demolish the same. It has also been noticed and not denied that two of the floors of the building in question have already been demolished and no objection was reised by any tenant. Therefore, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of this case, it may not be possible for this Court to hold that proposed action of the authority is mala fide to evict the petitioner. 11. That apart, the question whether the building plan has to be sanctioned or not is under the domain of the PRDA as per the statutory requirement. The locus standi of the petitioner to challenge the validity of sanction plan cannot be established unless he claims that he is in a position to erect upon the holding himself or he has right, title and interest in the property. 12. True it is as held by the apex court in the case of Ram Prasad Narayan Sahi and another vs. The State of Bihar and ors. (supra) or even this Court in the case of M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and another vs. The State of Bihar and ors. (supra), the protection granted to a tenant or landlord under various provisions of the BSC Act cannot be circumvented by substituting any other procedure. (supra) or even this Court in the case of M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and another vs. The State of Bihar and ors. (supra), the protection granted to a tenant or landlord under various provisions of the BSC Act cannot be circumvented by substituting any other procedure. On the other hand, as would appear from various provisions of the Act in question, if a landlord intends to reconstruct in order to make development in the building, no tenant can raise objection. No provision was brought to my notice that while granting sanction under section 37(1) of the Act for erection, addition or alteration of the building, a tenant of the existing building has a locus standi. Similar is the position when steps are taken by the authority for demolition of a building under section 54 of the Act. That apart, in this case, there is no allegation whatsoever that steps for sanction of the plan or demolition of the existing structure is being taken with a view to evict the tenant. It has already been noticed that two floors of the building have already been demolished and no objection was raised by other tenants. 13. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the abovementioned cases cannot have universal application unless the statute by its language says that all things different in genus and description from those, which are enumerated, are intended to be excluded. It always depends upon the facts of each case. Otherwise a tenant of illegally and unauthorisedly constructed building would never allow the authorities to exercise their jurisdiction under different provisions of the Act including that of section 54 of the Act. 14. Apart from what has been noticed above, in the present case even the petitioner has himself admitted that he had filed objection before the Vice-Chairman, PRDA to cancel the sanction plan in favour of respondent no.4. It would also appear from the order dated 23.3.1998 (Annexure 4) that the Vice-Chairman of course rejected the objection of the petitioner but after extending proper opportunity of hearing. He has also challenged the impugned steps of the respondents before the Civil Court in title suit. Therefore, he cannot allege that steps for demolition was taken without any information. 15. It would also appear from the order dated 23.3.1998 (Annexure 4) that the Vice-Chairman of course rejected the objection of the petitioner but after extending proper opportunity of hearing. He has also challenged the impugned steps of the respondents before the Civil Court in title suit. Therefore, he cannot allege that steps for demolition was taken without any information. 15. For the reasons stated above, I am constrained to hold that the petitioner has not been able to make any case for interference with the impugned action of the respondents authorities. Hence, I have no option but to dismiss this writ application as devoid of any merit.