A tenant in possession of a building shall not be evicted, except in execution of a decree of a court of competent jurisdiction obtained on one or more of the grounds specified in the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982.

M.Y.Eqbal, J.

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, respondent No. 5 and the State.

2. This case is another example of arbitrariness and highhandedness of the respondents authorities, who are the guardians of law and order in the district of Pakur, in dispossessing the petitioner from his possession without following the due process of law.

3. The short fact of the case was that the petitioner was running a grocery shop in a tenanted premises in the town of Pakur under the tenancy of respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 5 had filed a suit for eviction bearing Title Suit No. 11 of 1988. The said suit was dismissed on merit by the Subordinate Judge, Pakur, in terms of the judgment dated 16.7.1991 disbelieving the case of respondent No. 5, the land-lord, of default in payment of rent and personal necessity. A copy of the judgment is Annexure-11 to the writ application. Thereafter, respondent No. 5 preferred Title Appeal No. 21 of 1991 before the Additional District Judge, Pakur, which is admittedly pending.

4. The petitioners case was that, instead of pursing the remedy before the Additional District Judge, who was in seisin of the appeal, respondent No. 5 , in collusion with respondents 2 and 4, who are Deputy Commissioner, Sub-divisional Officer and Circle Officer, Pakur, respectively, got the notice issued from the office of respondent No. 2 whereby and whereunder the petitioner was directed by respondent No. 2 to appear before him and file show cause as to why the complaint made by respondent No. 5 should not be accepted. The petitioner went to the residence of respondent No. 2 but he was kept waiting for about 12 hours in the said premises and at about 4.00 A.M. in the next morning he was called in the chambers of respondent No. 2 where respondent No. 3 was also present. Respondents 2 and 3 asked the petitioner for his papers and the petitioner showed them the judgment and decree dated 16.7.1991 passed in the Eviction Suit which had been decide in his favour and against respondent No. 5. It was alleged that the said officers asked him to come again at 2.00 P.M. The petitioner went to meet respondent No. 2 again at 2.00 P.M. and he was told by respondent No. 2 that he would be coming to his shop for inspection at 7.00 P.M. Respondent No. 2 came to the shop of the petitioner at 7.45 P.M. and asked him whether this was the shop in which he was running his grocery shop. The petitioner then told him that he was running the small grocery shop to sustain his family which consisted of his old father, wife and five minor children. Thereafter, it was alleged that the respondent No. 2 caught hold of the hairs of the petitioner and slapped him a number of times saying that he should immediately vacate the shop premises along with his family members who were present in the shop at that time. Respondent No. 2 further directed respondent No. 3 to see that the petitioner vacates the shop premises along with his family members and all the articles in his shop. The petitioner, thus, after being harassed and humiliated, sent his family to his residential house which is also a rented house and went to see his lawyer who got an application drafted on behalf of the petitioner requesting respondent No. 2 not to take any step in the matter till the appeal before the Civil Court was finally decided. This was sent by registered post, as advised by the lawyer, to the Deputy Commissioner with a copy of the same to the Divisional Commissioner at Dumka. Copies of that application and the receipt have been filed and marked as Annexure-3 series. The petitioner further alleged that thereafter the did not visit the shop because, while returning back, the respondents 2 and 3 had threatened him that if he tried to enter into the shop again, he would be dragged up to the Police Station and put behind the bar.

5. The petitioner further alleged that he learnt that respondent No. 4 went to the shop premises of the petitioner on 26.8.1996 at 11.00 A.