JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents to execute registered indenture in favour of the petitioner in respect of House No.100/2-2 in compliance to the direction as contained in para-16 of the judgment dated 30.04.2013 rendered by the Division Bench of this Honble Court in L.P.A. No.612 of 2006 (Annexure-8). Further prayer is made for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the reasoned order dated 09.08.2019 passed by the respondent no.2 (Annexure-19). 2. Mr. Ayush Aditya, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Bihar State Housing Board evolved a scheme to let out pool of house under the Subsidized Industrial Housing Scheme to the employees/workman in ancillaries and industries. The petitioner was working on the post of Laboratory Assistant in National Metallurgical Laboratory under the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research situated at Jamshedpur in the district of East Singhbhum. He further submitted that in or about the year 1963, the petitioner was allotted the aforesaid House No.100/2-2 situated at Adityapur. Accordingly, on 01.09.1963, the petitioner came in occupation of the said house. The petitioner made an application as settlee for Hire Purchase Agreement of the said House No.100/2-2. He further submitted that by letter No.223(A) dated 08.09.1995, the Bihar State Housing Board allotted the aforesaid House No.100/2-2 under the Integrated Subsidized Industrial Housing Scheme to the petitioner in accordance with the decision taken by the Board vide meeting held on 21.01.1985 for a total cost of Rs.39,908/- fixed at the market rate asking the petitioner to pay initial amount of Rs.16,954/- and pay Rs.344.00 as instalment since October, 1995. He further submitted that a bipartite Hire Purchase Agreement was executed between the Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board, Jamshedpur and the petitioner on 25.09.1995. He further submitted that the Revenue Officer, Bihar State Housing Board, Patna intimated the petitioner about the final cost remained due and payable by the petitioner. The petitioner was required to pay a sum of Rs.4,392/- by 31.05.1999. He further submitted that upon the receipt of the letter dated 09.04.1999 and in compliance to the direction as contained therein and on 26.07.1999, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.4,430/- instead of Rs.4,392/- against grant of Receipt No.1593 dated 26.07.1999. The petitioner was required to pay a sum of Rs.4,392/- by 31.05.1999. He further submitted that upon the receipt of the letter dated 09.04.1999 and in compliance to the direction as contained therein and on 26.07.1999, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.4,430/- instead of Rs.4,392/- against grant of Receipt No.1593 dated 26.07.1999. He further submitted that although the amount in question was paid in full, no step was taken by the respondents to execute the registered indenture in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said house. He further submitted that on 13.01.2001, the respondent no.5 made calculation of deposits made by the petitioner in respect of the said house and found that Rs.2,177/- was further due. The petitioner deposited Rs.2,200/- through pay-in-slip dated 19.12.2013. He further submitted that although the amount in question has already been paid, but the registered deed of indenture was not entered into and that is why the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Mr. Ayush Aditya, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner confined his argument relying on the judgment rendered by this Court in '' Jharkhand State Housing Board & Ors. v. Dr. Brajendra Prasad Verma'' reported in 2013 (3) JLJR 234 . He put much emphasis on paragraph no.16 of the said judgment, which is quoted hereinbelow: ''16. Before parting with, we are directing the Jharkhand State Housing Board to look into all the matters wherein the deeds which are required to be registered have not been registered for long period and may proceed for registration of the deed in accordance with law and may take appropriate action in accordance with law.'' 3. He further submitted that the L.P.A judgment was taken before the Honble Supreme Court in S.L.P(C)No. 18641 of 2013 and the said S.L.P. was dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court by order dated 25.10.2013. He further submitted that the facts of this case and the case of ''Jharkhand State Housing Board & Ors. v. Dr. Brajendra Prasad Verma'' (supra) are similar and in that view of the matter the writ petition is fit to be allowed. He further submitted that Clause-16 and Clause-24 of the Hire Purchase Agreement was wrongly invoked against the petitioner. He further submitted that in the case of ''Jharkhand State Housing Board & Ors. v. Dr. v. Dr. Brajendra Prasad Verma'' (supra) are similar and in that view of the matter the writ petition is fit to be allowed. He further submitted that Clause-16 and Clause-24 of the Hire Purchase Agreement was wrongly invoked against the petitioner. He further submitted that in the case of ''Jharkhand State Housing Board & Ors. v. Dr. Brajendra Prasad Verma'' this aspect of the matter has been considered by the Division Bench that Clause-16 cannot be allowed to be invoked after such passing of the long period of more than 30 years, as it was not invoked earlier. He submitted that in view of the said judgment the prayer of the petitioner is fit to be allowed. He further submitted that the petitioner was not served with any notice for cancellation of the Hire Purchase Agreement and this aspect of the matter was considered by the Division Bench in that case. Thus, the case of the petitioner is fully covered and is fit to be allowed. Mr. Aditya, the learned counsel for the petitioner by way of opposing the prayer of the intervenor in I.A. No.10473 of 2019 submitted that the intervenor is not required to be added in this writ petition as the petitioner has not sought any relief against the intervenor. He submitted that even taking into consideration that if the intervenor is in possession of the said Flat as he failed to bring any suit for specific performance of contract this I.A. is fit to be dismissed. He further submitted that in ''Jharkhand State Housing Board & Ors. v. Dr. Brajendra Prasad Verma'' case this aspect has been considered in paragraph no.10 and 11 of the said judgment and in that case the intervention application filed by the intervenor was dismissed. 4. Per contra, Mr. Sachin Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Jharkhand State Housing Board submitted that the petitioner has not enclosed any document to substantiate his claim that in the year 1963 the petitioner was employed as industrial worker and was entitled to be considered for allotment of the house in question under Integrated Subsidized Industrial Housing Scheme (ISHS). He further referred to Annexure-1 to the writ petition and submitted that there is no year mentioned as year 1963. He submitted that the Housing Board is also not knowing about any agreement of the year 1963. He further referred to Annexure-1 to the writ petition and submitted that there is no year mentioned as year 1963. He submitted that the Housing Board is also not knowing about any agreement of the year 1963. He further submitted that the petitioner has enclosed the copy of the allotment dated 08.09.1995 issued by the then Bihar State Housing Board. There is no mention of the earlier allotment made by the then Bihar State Housing Board in the allotment letter dated 08.09.1995. Thus, the claim of the petitioner with regard to possession with effect from 1963 has been vehemently denied by the Jharkhand State Housing Board. The allotment of house no.100/2-2 was made in favour of the petitioner by letter dated 08.09.1995 and the Hire Purchase Agreement was executed on 25.09.1995. He further submitted that Clause-16 of Hire Purchase Agreement clearly provides that the settlee shall not sell, transfer, assign or sublet or otherwise partwith the possession of the whole or any part of the premises for a period of ten years without the previous consent of the Board in writing which the Board shall be entitled to refuse in its sole discretion. He further submitted that the intervener has been let out by the petitioner and the intervenor is residing in that house and thus, the petitioner has violated the Clause-16 of the Hire Purchase Agreement. He further submitted that in that view of the matter the intervenor is the necessary party in this writ petition. He further submitted that Section 59 of the Jharkhand State Housing Board provides the summary proceeding for eviction and recovery of rent. For the sake of convenience, Section 59 of the said Act is quoted hereinbelow: ''Sec.59. He further submitted that in that view of the matter the intervenor is the necessary party in this writ petition. He further submitted that Section 59 of the Jharkhand State Housing Board provides the summary proceeding for eviction and recovery of rent. For the sake of convenience, Section 59 of the said Act is quoted hereinbelow: ''Sec.59. Summary procedure for eviction and recovery of rents.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Act I of 1882), the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908) or any other law for the time being in force, if the competent authority is of opinion- (a) that the person authorized to occupy and Board premises has- (i) not paid rent lawfully due from him in respect of such premises for a period of not less than three months, or (ii) sub-let, without the permission in writing of the Board, the whole or any part of such premises, or (iii)committed, or is committing any act contrary to the provisions of clause (o) of section 108 of the Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 (Act 4 of 1882); or (iv)made or is making material alteration to, alteration in, such premises without the previous written permission of the Board, or (v)otherwise acted in contravention of any of the terms, expressed or implied, under which he is authorized to occupy such premises, or (b)that any person is in unauthorized occupation of any Board premises. '' 5. He further submitted that the Board is entitled for the damages in view of the Section 83 (A) of the said Act. He further submitted that the Bihar State Housing Board Regulation, 1983 , wherein Regulation 8 provides that a dwelling unit or flat or house site shall be allotted only to such persons- ''(a) who must be a citizen of India. (b) who must be domiciled in Bihar. (c)who shall have attained the age of maturity at present 18 years and not insolvent under law on the date of filing application, and (d) who or his wife/her husband or his/her dependent minor children do not own any land or house fully or partly either on free hold or lease-hold basis in the town within 8 Km. (c)who shall have attained the age of maturity at present 18 years and not insolvent under law on the date of filing application, and (d) who or his wife/her husband or his/her dependent minor children do not own any land or house fully or partly either on free hold or lease-hold basis in the town within 8 Km. of the area of the Municipal Corporation, Municipality or Notified Area Committee or area of the Housing Estate of the Board, Improvement Trust or any other Government undertakings for which application is made.'' 6. By way of referring to sub-Clause-d of Regulation 8 he submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for registration as it is condition precedent that no person will be allotted the house if land or house fully or partly either on free hold or lease-hold basis in the town within 8 Km of the area of the Municipal Corporation, Municipality or Notified Area Committee or area of the Housing Estate of the Board, Improvement Trust or any other Government undertakings for which application is made owned by his wife/her husband or his/her dependent. He submitted that this regulation has been relied by the petitioner only to the effect as this petitioner has occupied the another house HI 226 and HI 227. The petitioner is residing in the house situated in High Income Group Plot No.HI 226 and HI 227 and in house no.100/2-2 the intervenor is residing. He submitted that in view of the provisions made in the Act and considering this fact that this fact has been suppressed by the petitioner as he is residing in two flats of higher income group, the petition is fit to be dismissed. He further submitted that the petitioner was show-caused on 04.07.2014 to the effect that the Board will be compelled to take legal action against the petitioner in terms of Clause 24 of the Hire Purchase Agreement. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the said notice dated 04.07.2014. The petitioner has filed the reply and after consideration the Managing Director of the Board came to the conclusion that the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of allotment and by a reasoned order dated 19.08.2019 the Management Director of the Board has cancelled the allotment of house no.100/2-2 made in favour of the petitioner. He further submitted that the case of ''Jharkhand State Housing Board & Ors. He further submitted that the case of ''Jharkhand State Housing Board & Ors. v. Dr. Brajendra Prasad Verma'' (supra) is distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of this case. He further submitted that the entire case of the petitioner is based on the said case which are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. He further submitted that the person who has filed the said L.P.A. No.612 of 2006 has now filed the suit in the trial court. He further submitted that the petitioner is the same person who is power of attorney in L.P.A. No.612 of 2006. He further submitted in that case the Division Bench has considered that no notice of cancellation of Hire Purchase Agreement or allotment of the Housing Board was served in that case whereas in the present case the petitioner was served with the said notice. He further submitted that in that case the allotment was of the year 1968 whereas in this case, the allotment is of the year 1995. There is no agreement of 1963. He further submitted that in that case seeing the delay on the part of the Board that was allowed whereas this is not the fact in this case. He further submitted that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has considered this aspect of the matter in W.P.(C) No. 3935 of 2007 which was dismissed by order dated 01.11.2012. He further submitted that the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the intervenor has submitted that he is the necessary party as he is residing in the said house which is the subject matter of this case. 8. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties at length and gone through the materials on record. From perusal of Annexure-1 it transpires that the house no.100/2-2 was allotted under the industrial housing scheme. The petitioner seems to have deposited the amount but remained totally silent till the filing of the writ application in the year 2014. This Court failed to appreciate as to why a person namely, Sachida Nand Sinha, who is the petitioner of this writ petition taking the cause of the allottees as power of attorney holder as this petitioner has filed the aforesaid L.P.A in the capacity of power of attorney holder. This Court failed to appreciate as to why a person namely, Sachida Nand Sinha, who is the petitioner of this writ petition taking the cause of the allottees as power of attorney holder as this petitioner has filed the aforesaid L.P.A in the capacity of power of attorney holder. The petitioner is residing in two houses by way of amalgamating them which are HI 226 and HI 227. This is in violation of Regulation-8 of Bihar State Housing Board (Management and Disposal of Housing Estates), Regulation, 1983. He has also violated the terms and conditions of Hire Purchase Agreement of Clause 16 and Clause 24, respectively as he has given the house no.100/2-2 to the intervenor. The facts of the case in the case of ''Jharkhand State Housing Board & Ors. v. Dr. Brajendra Prasad Verma''(supra) are different as in this case Jharkhand State Housing Board has issued notice before cancellation. There is no delay on the part of the Jharkhand State Housing Board. The petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of Clause 16 and 24 and the Regulation-8. 9. On the background of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court does not find any reason to enter into the allotment of the said house as the petitioner himself never approached for redressal of his grievance till filing of the writ petition. The facts of L.P.A. No.612 of 2006 and the facts of this case are different. The petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the Hire Purchase Agreement as well as the aforesaid provisions of the Jharkhand State Housing Board. 10. In the aforesaid facts, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application and accordingly, the writ petition [W.P.(C) No.4813 of 2014] is dismissed. 11. Consequently, I.A.No.10473 of 2016 filed by the intervenor is also dismissed. I.A., if any, shall also stand disposed of.