Judgment Nagendra Rai, J. 1. The writ petitioners are the appellants against the judgment dated 23rd June, 2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No. 5431 of 1999 [reported in 2000(4) PLJR 530 ] dismissing the writ application filed by them challenging the order passed by the Vice-Chairman, Patna Regional Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) directing the demolition of the part of the building which was in their possession as tenants. 2. Holding No. 599 A on plot No. 821 situate on the Fraser Road in the town of Patna is owned by Ehsan Raza and Talat Raja, Respondents 5 and 6 respectively in the appeal (for short respondents owner). They submitted a building Plan being Plan Case No. 593 of 1980 before the concerned authority for construction of a market complex on the said holding, which was passed on 5.3.82. After completion of market complex, two rooms were let out to the appellants in 1982. The appellants opened a furniture shop in the name and style Vinayak Furniture. Later on, they started other business which was at the relevant time was in the name of Sri Vinayak Foods. The respondents-owner submitted another building plan before the Patna Regional Development Authority created under the provisions of Bihar Regional Development Authority Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) for construction of seven storied building by making additions and new constructions, the portion which was in possession of the appellants was shown as front set back area in the plain. The said building plan was passed on 1.11.1995. when the appellants came to know about the said fact, on 23.8.1997 they filed application for review for cancellation of the plan. Prior to that, it appears that one Keshav Prasad Singh filed a case before the Vice-Chairman of the Authority complaining that the owners were making construction in violation of the plan. One of the grounds was that no land is being left by the owner as set back area in terms of the plan. The Vice Chairman on 26.8.1997 passed an order for removal of unauthorised construction including the tenanted portion on the ground that the said area has to be left out as a set back area according to sanctioned plan and no construction will be allowed to remain on the set back area. The Vice Chairman on 26.8.1997 passed an order for removal of unauthorised construction including the tenanted portion on the ground that the said area has to be left out as a set back area according to sanctioned plan and no construction will be allowed to remain on the set back area. The Vice Chairman did not pass any order on the review application filed by the appellants for cancellation of the plan. The appellants filed appeal being Appeal No. 34 of 1998 before the appellate Tribunal created under the Act and the same was dismissed on 9.6.1999 on the ground that the tenant has no right to appeal. Thereafter the appellants filed the writ application in question, out of which this appeal arises, for a direction to the respondents authority to decide the review application, quashing the order passed on 26.8.1997 by the Vice-Chairman of the Authority and appellate order dated 9.6.1999. During pendency of the writ application, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the review application has been dismissed on 2.5.2000. The said order was challenged by the appellants and the learned Single Judge quashed the said order on the ground that the same was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appel- lants and a direction was issued to the authority concerned to pass a fresh order in the review application after hearing the appellants and then on 13.5.2000 the Vice Chairman of the Authority passed an order rejecting the review application. 3. It is admitted postition that the period of lease had expired on 30.11.1996 and thereafter another lease deed was executed on 1.1.1996 for a period for 11 months valid upto November, 1996. The appellants had knowledge of the passing of the second building plan as in Clause 18 of the lease deed, it is clearly mentioned that the appellants lessee covenants not to interfere in the construction of the ist, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th floors going on as the said building under construction is to be multi storied one. It is also admitted position that in 1997, the respondents owner have filed Eviction Suit No. 50 of 1997 for eviction of the appellants in the Civil Court on the ground of default in payment of rent. 4. It is also admitted position that in 1997, the respondents owner have filed Eviction Suit No. 50 of 1997 for eviction of the appellants in the Civil Court on the ground of default in payment of rent. 4. The appellants case is that admitedly they were tenants of the premises in question and the respondents owner got a building plan passed without informing the respondent authority about the tenancy. According to Section 11 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Building Act), the appellants, being tenants, cannot be evicted except in execution of a decree passed by the competent Court on any of the grounds mentioned therein. Sanctioning of the plan wherein the portion in possession of the appellants has been shown as set back area amounts to eviction of the appellants in breach of provision contained under Section 11 of the Building Act. Thus the sanctioning of the plan is in breach of Provision Contained in Section 37(2) of the Act which provides that if the proposed erection, alteration is in contravention of any provision of this Act, or any regulation made thereunder, or under any other law, sanction of the plan shall be refused. 5. Further stand of the appellants is that sanctioning of the plan was also obtained by the respondents owner on a misrepresentation as they did not inform the authorities that the appellants were continuing in a portion of the building as tenants and as such the Vice-Chairman of the authority should have cancelled the sanction after the fact was brought to the notice to it by the appellants in exercise of power under Section 38 of the Act. The direction for removal of unauthorised construction in contravention of the sanctioned plan by the authority in exercise of power 54 of the Act has been passed without notice to the appellants who were necessary party while deciding the matter under the aforesaid provision and on this ground also the order passed by the authority directing for removal of unauthorised construction is vitiated in law. 6. The stand of the respondent authority is that if the landlord intends to construct the multi storied building with a purpose to develop his land, the tenant of the building has no locus standi to challenge the order granting sanction of the plan under Section 37 of the Act. 6. The stand of the respondent authority is that if the landlord intends to construct the multi storied building with a purpose to develop his land, the tenant of the building has no locus standi to challenge the order granting sanction of the plan under Section 37 of the Act. No misrepresentation was made by the respondents owner at the time of obtaining the approvaf or sanction of the building plan nor they played a fraud by suppressing the material fact with the authority. According to the sanctioned plan, the whole structure which has been found in possession of the appellant was shown as set back area and the same has to be demolished to comply with the provisions of the building bye laws. As the landlord did not remove the structure from the area as shown as front set back area, the authority on the application filed by Keshav Prasad Singh took steps under Section 54 of the Act and passed an order. A tenant of the building is not required to be heard while passing an order under Section 54 of the Act. 7. The stand of the respondents owner is that they decided to construct a multi storied building with a view to develop the land and augment their income and, accordingly, they submitted a plan in terms of the building bye laws which was approved/sanctioned by the authority. According to the Building bye laws, the set back area has to be left and the building which was in occupation of the appellants was to be demolished as the said area was shown as set back area in the said building plan. The other tenants whose shops fell in the set back area, according to sanctioned plan, vacated the same. The appellants did not vacate the same inspite of notice. The appellants were also informed about the decision of the authority that the authorities have given ultimatum to them to demolish the southern and northern side of the portion under the tenancy of appellants, shown as set back portion, otherwise the same would be removed and cost thereof would be realised by them. Even then, the appellants did not vacate the premises. They also stated that they had not misrepresented the fact at the time of submission of sanction plan. Even then, the appellants did not vacate the premises. They also stated that they had not misrepresented the fact at the time of submission of sanction plan. The tenants have no locus standi in the matter of sanctioning a plan or removal of unauthorised construction in contravention of sanction plan passed by the authority under Section 54 of the Act. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants raised three points. Firstly, he submitted that the authority should not have approved and sanctioned the new building plan under the provisions of Section 37(2) of the Act as the sanctioning of the plan was in breach of the provisions contained in Section 11 of the Building Act. Removal of the appellants, who were living in the shop as tenants, cannot be done except in execution of a decree passed by the Civil Court on any of the grounds mentioned in the aforesaid Section of the Building Act. Secondly, he submitted that as the sanctioned plan was obtained by the respondents owner on misrepresentation, the authorities should have cancelled the same in exercise of power under Section 38 of the Act. Thirdly, he submitted that the respondent authority cannot pass an order of demolition of the shops of the appellants in exercise of power under Section 54 of the Act as it empowers them to order demolition of such erection or development work which is in contravention of any of the conditions subject to which permission, approval or sanction has been granted. The buildings which were in occupation of the appellants were not a fresh erection or development work rather the same were existing from before. Alternatively, it was submitted that even if Section 54 of the Act is attracted, an order could not be passed without giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appeflants who were in possession of the premises. 9. Alternatively, it was submitted that even if Section 54 of the Act is attracted, an order could not be passed without giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appeflants who were in possession of the premises. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent authority and the private respondents combatted all the submissions raised on behalf of the appeallants and submitted that there was no violation of any law while approving the building plan under Section 37 of the Act and there was no misrepresentation on the part of the respondents owner in submitting the building plan, as such there was no question of cancellation of building plan on the said ground ft was further submitted that the only person who is required to be heard before an order under Section 54 of the Act is passed, is the owner or the person concerned at whose instance, erection or development work has been commenced or is being carried out or has been completed. The tenant has no locus standi. The building which was in occupation of the appellant was shown as a set back area in the sanctioned plan in terms of the building bye laws and the same has to be removed and non-removal of the same by the owner was a contravention of the conditions subject to which the approval of the building plan was granted and as such the respondent-authority was competent to remove the same. 10. Admitted position is that when the new building plan was approved, the appellants were occupying the premises as a tenant. The provisions of the Building Act is applicable and the appellants can be evicted from the premises by the land-lord only by a decree passed by the Civil Court on fulfilment of any of the grounds mentioned under Section 11 of the Building Act. The tenants cannot be evicted in an unauthorised manner or without following a due process of law. Even if the term of tenancy has expired, the tenant remains a juridical person and does not give right to the landlord to take possession in unauthorised manner, even in that situation he has to take possession by following due process of law. 11. Even if the term of tenancy has expired, the tenant remains a juridical person and does not give right to the landlord to take possession in unauthorised manner, even in that situation he has to take possession by following due process of law. 11. The question for consideration in this case is as to whether construction of a new building in terms of new building plan by the respondents owner amounts to step taken by him for eviction of the appellants without following the procedure prescribed under the law. To answer this question, relevant provisions of the Act having bearing have to be stated. 12. Section 36 of the Act contains a provision with regard to giving notice in writing by any person of his intention relating to carry out a development plan or any other development work, to make any addition or alteration thereto, to the Vice Chairman. Section 37 of the Act contains a provision with regard to sanction or refusal of application for erection of a building or addition or alteration thereto. Sub-section (2) of the said Section, which is relevant, provides that if the proposed erection, alteration would be in contravention of any provision of this Act, or any regulation made in this behalf or under any other law sanction of the plan shall be refused. Section 38 of the Act empowers the Vice-Chairman of the Authority to cancel the sanction granted under Section 37(1) of the Act, if the same has been obtained on the basis of misrepresentation or fraudulent statement made before it while obtaining sanction Section 54 of the Act gives power to the authority for demolition of the building and the same runs as follows. Order of demolition of building, (1) Where any deve oment or erection of building has bee commenced or is being carried on or has been completed in contravention of the Regional Plan, Master Plan or Zonal Development Plan or without the permission, approval or sanction referred to in Sections 35, 36, 37 or in contravention of any conditions subject to which such permission, approval or sanction has been granted, any officer of the Authority empowered by it in this behalf may, in addition to prosecution that may be instituted under this Act, make an order briefly stating the reasons therefor directing that such erection or development work shall be removed by demolition, filling or otherwise by the owner thereof or by the person at whose instance the erection or development work has been commenced or is being carried out or has been completed within a period of thirty days from the date on which a copy of the order of removal has been delivered to the owner or that person, as may be specified in the order, and on his failure to comply with the order, any officer of the Authority may remove or cause to be removed the erection or development work and the expenses of such removal shall be recovered from the owner or the person at whose instances the erection or development was commenced or was being carried out or was composed, as arrears of land revenue. Provided that no such order shall be made unless the owner or the person concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity to show cause why the order should not be made. (2) Any person aggrieved by an order under sub section (1) may appeal to a Tribunal constituted under this Act against the order within thirty days from the date thereof; and the Tribunal may after hearing the parties to the appeal either allow or dismiss the appeal or reverse or vary the order or any part thereof. (3) The decision of the Tribunal on the appeal and subject only such decision the order under sub-section (1) shall be final and conclusive. (4) The provisions of this section shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other provisions relating to demolition of buildings contained in any other law for the time being in force." 13. (3) The decision of the Tribunal on the appeal and subject only such decision the order under sub-section (1) shall be final and conclusive. (4) The provisions of this section shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other provisions relating to demolition of buildings contained in any other law for the time being in force." 13. Thus, it is clear that once an application is filed for erection of a building or addition or alteration thereto, the ViceChairman of the Authority will sanction the same if the same does not contravene any provision of the Act or regulation made thereunder as provided under Section 37 (1) of the Act. The Vice-Chairman will refuse the approval of the building plan only when the plan contravenes the provisions of the Act, regulation made thereunder or any other law. 14. According to the appellant, the authority should not have sanctioned the plan as it contravened the provision of Section 11 of the building Act in the sense that the building which was in possession of the appellant has to be removed in terms of the sanctioned plan and the same will amount to evicting the appellants from the premises without following the procedure prescribed under Section 11 of the Act. We are unable to agree with the submission advanced on behalf of the appellants. The word under "any other law" under Section 37 of the Act has to be read ejusdem generis. In other words, if there is contravention of provisions contained under any law, similar to the provisions of the Act or regulation made thereunder, then the sanction may be refused. There is no requirement under Section 36 of the Act while making an application for sanctioning of the building plan that the landlord should disclose that any portion with regard to which erection, addition is sought for is in occupation of the tenant. Thus, sanction of a building plan cannot be refused on the ground urged on behalf of the appellant. We fully agree with the reasonings given by the learned Single Judge to negative the said submission. As in the law, there is no requirement to state about the presence of a tenant in the building or the land for which building plan has been submitted, there was no question of misrepresentation or fraud played by the owners at the time of submission of building plan. As in the law, there is no requirement to state about the presence of a tenant in the building or the land for which building plan has been submitted, there was no question of misrepresentation or fraud played by the owners at the time of submission of building plan. Thus, no case for cancellation of the building plan has been made out. 15. Section 54 of the Act provides for demolition of the building provided it is being carried out in contravention of the Regional Plan, Master Plan or Zonal Development Plan or without the permission or sanction referred to Sections 35, 36, 37 or in contravention of any conditions subject to which such permission, approval or sanction has been granted. It further provided that order for demolition of such erection or building, shall be passed provided an opportunity of hearing is given to the owner or the person concerned. The other person concerned apart from owner is the person at whose instance the erection or development work has been commenced or is being carried out or has been completed. In other words, the tenant does not come in the picture when the order of demolition is being passed and as such the tenant cannot claim hearing by the authority while exercising the power under Section 54 of the Act. Thus, on that ground, the order of demolition cannot be interfered with. 16. According to the building plan, the building in possession of the appellants was shown as front set back area and as such while constructing a new building the said area has to be left out as a set back area, that is to say, an open land. If the continuance of existing building on set back area amounts to contravention of a condition subject to which the sanction was accorded for building plan, the authorities are competent to demolish the same in exercise of power under Section 54 of the Act. The appellants were aware of the sanctioning of the new building plan and the construction as is evident from the term lease deed. The appellants were aware of the sanctioning of the new building plan and the construction as is evident from the term lease deed. From the supplementary counter affidavit filed in the writ application by respondents owner, it appears that the other tenants whose premises fell within the set back area have already vacated the same and the appellants have also removed the Bakery machines and some other articles from the lease premises and have already closed the business. On the basis of materials on record, it cannot be said that the object or purpose of the construction of a new building or addition or alteration was with the object of evicting the appellants from the premises in question. On the other hand, the respondents owner acted bonafide and no provision of the Act has been violated while approving the building plan. The order of demolition was consistent with the provision of the Act. 17. In the result, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. I.P.Singh, J. 18 I agree.