The main legal point established is that an order for eviction for repairs under Sec. 9 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1981 must be within the authority bestowed by law, and any illegal eviction can lead to liability for damages.

Barin Ghosh, J.

1. The writ petitioner was a tenant under the respondent No. 5 of a shop room. The respondent No. 5 approached the respondent No. 2 with a request to the respondent No. 2 to remove the petitioner from the shop room in question for the purpose of effecting repairs thereto. The respondent No. 2 issued a notice to the petitioner. The petitioner responded to the notice and contended before the respondent No. 2 that the respondent No. 2 is not the competent authority to implement the request as made by the respondent No. 5. Before the respondent No. 2 the respondent No. 5 contended that the respondent No. 2 has authority to direct removal of the petitioner from the shop room in question in terms of Sec. 9 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1981. The petitioner contended before the respondent No. 2 that u/s. 9 of the said Act, at the instance of the landlord, no order can be passed for effecting repairs.

2. On 12th January, 2001, the respondent No. 2 passed two orders. In the first order, the respondent No. 2 stated that in terms of the provisions contained in Sec. 9 of the said Act, a landlord cannot ask for assistance to effect repairs of a tenanted property. In the next order also passed on 12th January, 2001, the respondent No. 2 directed forceful removal of the petitioner from the shop room in question through the instrumentality of the local police for the purpose of effecting repairs but while doing so did not record in the order that under any provision of law he has any authority to pass any such order, despite recording that his authority to pass such an order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a written notes on arguments. Surprisingly while passing the order, the respondent No. 2 did not direct taking of inventory of the materials which were then lying in the shop room in question nor did he direct restoration of the shop room in question after repairs are done.

3. Before the respondent No. 2, as recorded in the second order passed on 12th January, 2001, it was contended by the petitioner that he is running the shop in question the same does not require any repair and that merchandise belonging to him for dealing in readymade garments are lying in the shop room in question. It is unfortunate that simply on the basis of the contention of the respondent No. 5 supported by the contention of the local police that the shop is lying closed, the respondent No. 2 did not direct taking of inventory of the goods which were lying in the shop room in question.

4. Before the writ petitioner could move this Court challenging the said order the same was implemented and the respondent No. 5 with the police force not only removed the locks fastened to the entrance of the shop room but also removed whatever was then lying thereat and thereafter started to occupy the same. As a result, by reason of the said order, the respondent No. 5 not only evicted the petitioner from his tenanted shop room but also became owner of whatever was then lying in the shop room which belonged to the petitioner.

5. Immediately after the writ petition was filed and a copy thereof was served upon the learned counsel for the State the respondent No. 2 passed yet another order purporting to take back possession of that shop room from the respondent No. 5 on the ground that the respondent No. 5 is using the shop room in question for his own purpose and not for the purpose of effecting repairs thereto. There is nothing on record from where it would be evidenced that after allegedly taking possession of the shop room from the respondent No. 5 the respondent No. 2 made over the same to the petitioner.

6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State and the respondent No. 2 it has been shown that an inventory was prepared at the time of wrongful entry of the respondent No. 5 to the shop room in question with the assistance of police on the basis of that order of the respondent No. 2 dated 12th January