Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1138 (PAT)

Rinki Devi v. State Of Bihar

2002-10-24

SHASHANK KR.SINGH

body2002
Judgment 1. It appears to be a very peculiar case. The petitioner who was the land lady had given her house on rent to one Arun Kumar, proprietor of M/s Bachchan Traders, who was doing business of liquor. When he defaulted with the Excise Department, his licence was cancelled. Subsequently the Excise Department decided to lease out the petitioners house to one Sheo Narayan Jaiswal, respondent no. 4. When the petitioner represented before the Collector, East Champaran, Motihari, he fixed Rs. 3,500/- per month for her house as rent, which the Collector had given on lease to respondent no. 4. This court finding the said order without authority of law directed the respondents to file counter affidavit and issued notice to respondent no. 4. 2. The notice was validly served on respondent no. 4 but inspite of the same he had chosen not to appear. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of remaining respondent. The stand of the State is that the petitioner earlier had also leased out her house and she was renting her house on lease, as such, she was not at all affected when the Collector decided to lease her house on rent and also fixed rent because she would be receiving rent from the new tenant, put in by the Collector. 3. In the facts of the case by no stretch of imagination, it can be held that the Collector, Motihari, can have any right of the property of Smt. Rinki Devi either to put the same on rent or otherwise and neither in the counter affidavit any material has been brought on record showing sanction to acquire the premises of the Petitioner for lease to respondent no. 4. This Court has no option but to direct the respondent-Collector, Motihari, to get the aforesaid premises vacated and hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the same to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is, however, made clear that it shall be responsibility of the respondent-Collector, Motihari, who has inducted the respondent no. 4 in the premises of the petitioner, to pay the petitioners rental at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- per month which has been fixed by him from the date respondent no. It is, however, made clear that it shall be responsibility of the respondent-Collector, Motihari, who has inducted the respondent no. 4 in the premises of the petitioner, to pay the petitioners rental at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- per month which has been fixed by him from the date respondent no. 4 was inducted in the premises of the petitioner till the date the same is vacated, if the same has not been paid to the petitioner as yet, as it has been contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 4. Non-compliance of the aforesaid order within the said period shall be deemed as wilful dis-obedience of the order of this Court, likely for initiation of proceeding of contempt against the Collector, Motihari, who shall communicate to the Court the compliance of the order passed today within the period as stipulated by this Court. 5. The writ application is allowed with cost as indicated above. 6. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned J.C. to G.P. II for communication to the Collector, Motihari, for due compliance.