Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 182 (PAT)

Rakesh Shrivastava v. State Of Bihar

2008-01-28

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2008
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. On 10.12.2007 this Court had occasion to record certain thing which does not speak well about the way the then Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Narkatiyaganj had acted in the matter. The only thing which this Court records and what has emerged from the dispute between the parties is that the method or methodology evolved for getting rid of an inconvenient tenant in the opinion of this Court cannot be permitted. 3. No doubt on a petition filed by petitioner under Section 10 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 a proceeding was initiated. It is apparent from the reading of the said petition that the landlord was trying to create problems in peaceful enjoyment, the use of the tenanted property as well as the amenity under law. Subsequently, it seems that the Sub-Divisionaf Magistrate went out of his way and evicted the petitioner from the premises in question and removed all his goods. 4. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 6 and 7 is represented through their counsel and he has no explanation to offer to the litigation. His primary contention and objection is that they were not even properly noticed in the matter and certain orders were passed which cannot be attributed to them. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate he states that he is not in a position to explain aii the action which has been taken in past because he has joined only recently but he does accept the position that the order which came to be passed may not be in accordance with the law and he also certifies that after intervention of this Court vide earlier order dated 10.12.2007 the lock of the premises was opened, all the goods which were removed from the shop was restored, and possession given to the petitioner but he also states that additional locks has been put by the landlord. The action of the landlord of putting his lock on the premises has neither been explained by the learned counsel for the landlord nor the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. 6. The action of the landlord of putting his lock on the premises has neither been explained by the learned counsel for the landlord nor the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. 6. After hearing the parties the some essence of the dispute is this whether the tenant or the present petitioner is entitled to the protection of law under Section 10 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act or not and whether the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has limited right to examine the dispute as house controller as to whether the allegations made in the application are borne out or not? It is not for him to facilitate either to evict the tenant or make it convenient for the landlord so that the tenant is forced to leave the premises. 7. This writ application is disposed of with a direction to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to issue notice to the private respondent nos. 5 to 7 on the petition filed under Section 10 of the Act under Annexure-2 who shall after hearing the parties pass an appropriate order, However this Court would iike to observe that till the matter with regard to Annexure-2 is adjudicated upon the authorities shall ensure that the petitioners status as a tenant and peaceful enjoyment of the property is not disturbed till an appropriate order from a Court of competent jurisdiction is passed against him. The orders passed after filing of Annexure-2 are hereby quashed. 8. This writ application is disposed of with the above direction.