Back
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
S.N. Jha, J.
Amrit Varsha Hindi Dainik – Petitioner
vs.
The Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board & anr. – Respondents
C.W.J.C. No. 5918 of 1997
Decided On : 16.10.1998
BBC ACT - EVICTION OF TENANT - JURISDICTION - Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (BBC Act) - Section 11 - Government Premises (Rent, Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1956 (Government Premises Act) - Section 4 - Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board (Board) - Whether the Sub-divisional Officer had jurisdiction to evict the petitioner from the premises under the Government Premises Act - Whether the petitioner was entitled to consequential relief of restoration of possession.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Hindi newspaper published from Patna, filed a writ petition challenging the notice issued by the Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar, Patna, calling upon it to appear and participate in the eviction proceedings under the Government Premises Act. The petitioner objected to the maintainability of the proceeding on the ground that the building in question belonged to the Board, which was not a part of the Government. The Sub-divisional Officer rejected the objection and passed a final order directing the petitioner to vacate the premises within 15 days. The petitioner filed an application for stay of the operation of the orders and the court passed an interim order directing that the petitioner would not be forcibly evicted from the premises till further hearing. The parties were directed to sit together and ascertain the arrear amount. The Board purported to act in the light of the court's order and proceeded with the eviction of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application to restrain the respondents from evicting it till the disposal of the writ petition. The court did not pass any positive order but directed the respondents to strictly follow the interim order passed earlier. The writ petition came up for hearing and the court heard the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned order of eviction was without jurisdiction as the premises could not be called 'Government Premises' within the meaning of the Government Premises Act. The court also held that the petitioner was entitled to compensation for the loss caused to it by forcible dispossession.
Issues: 1. Whether the Sub-divisional Officer had jurisdiction to evict the petitioner from the premises under the Government Premises Act? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to consequential relief of restoration of possession.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Sub-divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to evict the petitioner from the premises under the Government Premises Act as the premises belonged to the Board, which was not a part of the Government. The court relied on the definition of 'Government Premises' under section 2(c) of the Government Premises Act, which defines it as any premises belonging to, or taken on lease or requisitioned by, the State Government. 2. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to compensation for the loss caused to it by forcible dispossession. The court took into account the petitioner's past conduct and the overall view of the matter and held that it would not be proper to direct the respondents to restore back possession of the premises to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned notice and orders passed by the Sub-divisional Officer. The court also directed the Board to pay compensation of Rs. 1 lac to the petitioner within two months.
S.N. Jha, J.
The petitioner is a Hindi newspaper published from Patna and Dhanbad having its registered office in the premises in question, which is a part of the building known as Pant Bhawan on Bailey Road in the town of Patna. The writ petition was initially filed for quashing the notice dated 5.5.97 issued by the Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar, Patna (described as 'House Controller' in the notice) in Eviction case No.7 of 1987 calling upon the petitioner to appear and participate in the eviction proceedings on the date fixed, namely, 6.5.97. The petitioner objected to the maintainability of the proceeding by filing an application to that effect on 7.7.97. Two days earlier on 5.7.97 it had filed the present writ petition in this Court. The objection was rejected by the Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar, Patna, describing himself as 'competent authority' on 22.11.97. It may be mentioned here that the Sub-divisional Officer of the concerned subdivision exercise the powers of 'Controller' under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 ('BBC Act' for short) and 'competent authority' under the Bihar Government Premises (Rent, Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1956 ('the Government Premises Act' for short). It may also be mentioned here that the objection of the petitioner as to the maintainability of the proceeding rested primarily on the ground that the Government Premises Act applies to 'government premises' within the meaning of the Act and in as much as the building in question i.e. Pant Bhawan belongs to the Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board ('the Board, for short) which is not a part of the Government the eviction proceeding under the Government Premises Act was not maintainable. The Sub-divisional Officer held that the Board is a statutory body created under the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 over which the State Government has full control and, therefore, the property and the assets of the Board are Government property. After passing the aforesaid ORDER :dated 22.11.97 the Sub-divisional officer proceeded to pass final ORDER :on 2.12.97. He held by the said ORDER :that the petitioner was in huge arrear of rent to the tune of more than Rs. 3 lacks; running of the press business was also un-authorised and, therefore, the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of the premises. The Sub-divisional Officer, accordingly, directed it to vacate the premises within 15 days from the date of receipt of the ORDER :under section 4 of the Government Premises Act, failing which it would be evicted by use of force as may be necessary. I shall refer to the said two ORDER :s dated 22.11.97 and 2.12.97 again in this JUDGMENT :.
2. The petitioner filed an application (IA No. 8282/97) for stay for the operation of the ORDER :s dated 22.11.97 and 2.12.97. On 19.12.97 this court passed an interim ORDER :directing that till further hearing in the stay matter on 9.1.98, the petitioner will not be forcibly evicted from the premises in pursuance of the ORDER :dated 2.12.97. After the respondent-Board filed its counter affidavit in the stay matter, on 2.2.98 the court admitted the writ petition and directed that during the pendency the petitioner will not be evicted from the premises in question provided it goes on paying monthly rent as legally payable in terms of the conditions laid down in the lease deed by 15th day of the following month. In view of the controversy regarding the quantum of arrear the Court directed the petitioner and the Managing Director of the respondent-Board to sit together and ascertain the arrear amount within three weeks of receipt/production of the ORDER :, clarifying that while ascertaining the arrear amount the Board will take into consideration and adjust the amount already paid by the petitioner. The court further directed that after the arrear amount is so determined, the same must be paid by the petitioner within one month. The Court observed that if the petitioner fails t
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
