Judgment 1. Petitioner in the present writ petition is a tenant in a room measuring 11-3" x 21 -3" of the building situated in Govind Mitra Road, Patna bearing holding no. 160, Circle No. 24 and is running his clinic in the said premises. He is aggrieved by the construction of a multi-storeyed building, namely, Govind Niwas being carried out by Jagdeep Prasad Verma (Respondent no. 3) on the basis of the plan sanctioned by the Patna Regional Development Authority, hereinafter referred to as the authority, which, according to the petitioner, was obtained by suppressing/misrepresenting the facts of tenancy of this petitioner. 2. According to the case of the petitioner, in 1998 ownership of the tenanted premises changed as Respondent no. 3 purchased the same. On 12.8.1998, the said Respondent no. 3 submitted Building Plan Case No. 664/98 which was sanctioned on 15.10.1998. It is alleged that Respondent no. 3 started harassing the petitioner and threatened him for which he lodged information with the Police. On 22.4.1999 a petition under Section 38 of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act was filed to cancel the sanction of the building plan. In view of the general direction of this Court in the case of Arun Kumar Muk-herjee V/s. State of Bihar & others, a petition was filed to initiate proceedings, but when no proceeding was initiated, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. According to the case of the petitioner, Respondent no. 3 suppressed.the facts of existing construction over the land in question and his tenancy over a portion thereof and got the sanction of the plan contrary to the Set-back Rules. It is stated that, as a matter of fact, Respondent no. 3 by swearing false affidavit that the front set-back area shall be cleared, has obtained the aforesaid sanction without taking into consideration of the fact that the petitioner is running his clinic in the existing construction and he cannot be evicted without due process of law and further that any forceful eviction will amount to interference in the peaceful enjoyment of the tenanted premises and will also amount to contravention of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982. 3. The tenancy of the petitioner is not denied by the Respondents. 3. The tenancy of the petitioner is not denied by the Respondents. It is, however, stated that in the agreement of tenancy one of the condition was "vacate within one month from the date when the first party requires the second party to vacate it for personal necessity of the first party." First party meant Mitras and second party meant the present writ petitioner. Mitras vended their property in favour of Respondent no. 3 for valuable consideration. At the time of negotiation he assured to extend all kind of necessary cooperation in getting the premises vacated. It is alleged that in the aforesaid transaction, petitioner was fully informed in writing about the change in ownership. The deponent negotiated with the petitioner, who agreed to vacate the tenanted premises on the condition of payment of sumptuous amount without any receipt. It is further alleged that the said amount was paid before the witnesses, who are responsible persons of the society for future reference. On payment made by the deponent, the petitioner vacated the tenanted premises, but later changed his mind and demanded more money and threatened to face prosecution. It is alleged that the petitioner is bent upon to squeeze out the maximum out of the Respondent and, as such, has filed such cases which can always be compromised at his instance, be it criminal or civil cases. It is contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the sanctioned map of the deponents construction, more so in a writ petition, where facts are mostly disputed. The allegation regarding forceful demolition and theft of his belongings at the instance of the petitioner have been emphatically denied and is stated to be concocted one. 4. It appears that Vigilance Case No. 66A/99 was started on the basis of the report submitted by the Assistant Director with respect to alleged deviations and a Misc. Case No. 7 of 1999 was started on the basis of the above mentioned petition submitted by the petitioner. Since both the cases involved the same party and same building, they have been heard together and disposed of vide order dated 31.5.2000, the validity of which has been assailed by the petitioner by filing supplementary affidavit in I.A. No. 3696 of 2000. Since both the cases involved the same party and same building, they have been heard together and disposed of vide order dated 31.5.2000, the validity of which has been assailed by the petitioner by filing supplementary affidavit in I.A. No. 3696 of 2000. The Vice-Chairman vide said order has noticed the fact that the site plan and building plan clearly showed the existing construction as well as the proposed construction. Respondent no. 3 also filed the documents to substantiate his title and ownership and affidavit stating therein that if the map plan was sanctioned he would dismantle and remove the existing construction falling in the front set-back of the building in question. The petitioner neither disputed the title or ownership of the land in question nor the existing construction as shown by Respondent no. 3 in his map plan. The Vice Chairman has also considered that the provisions of the Act or bye-laws do not require the landlord to furnish details of his tenants before any sanction is granted to him for development of his land. The petitioner also did not establish that there was any civil dispute pending in respect of the construction in question at the time of sanction given to Respondent no. 3. On consideration of the said facts, the Vice-Chairman did not find sufficient cause to revoke the sanction in question nor did it appear to him to be a case of material misrepresentation by Respondent no. 3. According to the Vice-Chairman, it appears to be a case of tenancy dispute for resolution of which both the parties were given liberty to move the competent Civil Court. 5. The petitioner, who himself appeared in person, submitted that under clause 7.1 of the Modified Building Bye-laws, applications for development or redevelopment of land or erection, re-erection or making material alterations of buildings are to be submitted to the Authority, and the Authority is required to ensure that adequate guarantee has been obtained from the owner for carrying out the building activity as per the specifications prescribed. It is submitted that the Authority was also required to verify the facts given in the application and An-nexures from technical, administrative and legal point of view, but the same have not been complied by the Authority in the present case inasmuch as the sanction has been accorded on misrepresentation of the fact by suppressing his tenancy over a portion thereof, and the Authority also failed to ensure and obtain adequate guarantee from the owner for carrying out the building activity as per the specification prescribed. Thus, according to the petitioner it is a fit case for exercise of the power under Section 38 of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1981, which provides that if at any time after the sanction to erection of any building or addition or alteration thereto has been accorded, the Vice-Chairman is satisfied that such sanction was accorded in consequence of any material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement contained in the notice given or information furnished under Section 37, he may by order in writing and for reasons to be recorded cancel such sanction and erection of any building or addition or alteration thereto shall be deemed to have been done without such sanction. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondents have submitteed that there is no infirmity in the order of the Vice-Chairman. In fact, the provisions of the Act and bye-laws do not require the landlord to furnish the details of his tenant before any sanction is granted to him tor development of his land, and thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no question of any mis-representation or fraud by Respondent no. 3 warranting interference by the Vice-Chairman in exercise of the power under Section 38 of the Act. 7. This Court finds substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the Respondents. It appears to be out and out a case of dispute relating to the tenancy for which remedy of the petitioner lies before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction under the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act. Petitioner has failed to show any provision under which there is any requirement for the landlord to furnish the details of his tenant in the premises in question for making an application for sanction for development of his land. Petitioner has failed to show any provision under which there is any requirement for the landlord to furnish the details of his tenant in the premises in question for making an application for sanction for development of his land. This Court finds that in the facts and circumstances, the Vice-Chairman has rightly held that no sufficient cause has been made out to revoke the sanction in question nor it can be said to be a case of material mis-representation to invoke the power under Section 38 of the Act. He has rightly held that this appears to be a case of tenancy dispute for resolution of which both the parties have been given liberty to approach the competent Civil Court. This Court would further add to give liberty to the parties to take up any other procedure before appropriate forum with respect to the allegations and counter- allegations made in the writ petition, but in the facts and circumstances aforementioned, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 8. The writ petition is, thus, dismissed.