The main legal point established is that the Bihar Government Premises (Rent, Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1956 applies only to premises belonging to the State Government, and restoration of possession may be ordered if an eviction order is held to be illegal due to lack of inherent jurisdiction.

B.P.SINGH, J.

1. These two Letters Patent Appeals arise out of the common judgment and order of a learned Judge of this Court dated 16th October, 1998 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5918 of 1997 and, therefore, these two appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.

2. The writ petition was filed by Amrit Varsha Hindi Dainik through its proprietor publisher and auditor Paras Nath Tiwari, which has its office in the premises in question being Pant Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, which admittedly is owned by the Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board (hereinafter referred to as the respondent-Board). In the writ petition filed by Amrit Varsha Hindi Dainik (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Patna, respondent No. 2 herein, dated 22-11-1997 and 2-12-1997 ordering its eviction from the premises in question under the provisions of the Bihar Government Premises (Rent, Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were challenged as being without jurisdiction. The learned Judge while upholding the contention of the appellant and holding that the orders had been passed by an authority which had no jurisdiction in the matter, did not, in exercise of his discretion, grant the prayer for restoration of possession of the premises to the appellant in view of the fact that he was a chronic defaulter. Instead, he directed that the appellants should be compensated for the loss caused to it by forceful dispossession which was quantified by him at Rs. 1,00,000.00 (rupees one lac). In addition, the appellant was given liberty to institute a suit for recovery of the price of goods which, according to it, had not been accounted for or returned to it, and for damages.

3. Letters Patent Appeal No. 576 of 1999 was filed by the appellant on 13-5-1999 challenging that part of the judgment and order whereby restoration of possession of the premises in question was refused. Letters Patent Appeal No. 596 of 1999 was filed on 18-5-1999 by the respondent Board challenging that part of the judgment whereunder it was held that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer under the Act was without jurisdiction.

4. The facts which give rise to the instant appeal may be briefly noticed.The respondent executed a leave. agreement in favour of the appellant on 25-8-97 granting to the appellant a lease of the remises in question for a period of three years. The monthly rental payable for the premises was Rs. 5560.00 (at the rate of Rupees 2.00 per sq. ft.) and the agreement was to commence from the 6th August, 1987. According to the respondent-Board, since the appellant was a chronic defaulter, it was left with no option but to initiate a proceeding for his eviction under the provisions of the Act. The said eviction case was registered as Eviction Case No. 7 of 1997 in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Patna Sadar. On 5-5-1997 notice of the eviction proceeding was served upon the appellant by the SDO, Patna Sadar describing himself as the House Controller which required the appellant to appear and participate in the proceeding on 6-5-1997. On 5-7-1997, the appellant filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the notice issued on 5-5-1997 and for a direction to the respondent authorities not to disturb the peaceful possession of the appellant. On 7-7-1997, the appellant also filed a petition before the Sub-Divisional Officer objecting to the maintainability of the eviction proceeding before him. His objection was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer by his order dated 22-11-1997 on a finding that the premises in question were Government property. Ultimately, the S.D.O. acting as the "competent authority" passed a final order on 2-12-1997 directing the appellant to vacate the premises within 15 days of the receipt of the order failing which he may be forcibly evicted. The S.D.O. found that the appellant had defaulted in the matter of