Back
2014 Supreme(Pat) 581
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
R.M. DOSHIT & ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, JJ.
Ram Das Gupta & Anr.- Respondent-Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors. - Petitioners-Respondent
LPA No.25 of 2012 With IA No. 204 of 2012 And IA No.4199 of 2014
Decided on: 07-07-2014
Advocate Appeared
For the Appellants : Mr. Ajay Prasad
For the Respondent Nos.1-5: Mr. Harish Kumar
For the respondent No.6: Mr. Avinash Kumar
For the Respondent Nos.7-10: Mr. Utsav Kumar
The main legal point established is that a petition by the tenants against the landlord cannot be maintained under Article 226 of the Constitution when the tenant has a specific statutory remedy under the relevant Act.
Headnote:
Judicial Review - Landlord and Tenant Dispute - The court held that a petition by the tenants against the landlord cannot be maintained under Article 226 of the Constitution, especially when the tenant has a specific statutory remedy under Section 17 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982.
Fact of the Case:
The tenants approached the court under Article 226 of the Constitution for compensation and direction against the landlords after the trust building was demolished and a new construction was being made.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the learned single Judge erred in exercising the power of judicial review in a private dispute between the landlord and tenants. The Appeal was allowed, and the judgment and order of the learned single Judge were set aside, dismissing the case on the ground of maintainability alone.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in a private dispute between the landlord and tenants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a petition by the tenants against the landlord cannot be maintained under Article 226 of the Constitution, especially when the tenant has a specific statutory remedy under Section 17 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982.
Final Decision: The Appeal was allowed, and the judgment and order of the learned single Judge were set aside, dismissing the case on the ground of maintainability alone.
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Interlocutory Application No.4199 of 2014
1. Learned advocate Mr. Utsav Kumar appears for the respondent no.8.
2. In view of the appearance filed by Mr. Utsav Kumar for the respondent no.8, this Application is disposed of.
Letters Patent Appeal no.25 of 2012
3. We have heard the learned advocates extensively.
4. This Appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been preferred by the respondent nos.7 and 8 in CWJC No.5971 of 2006 against the judgment and order dated 29th April 2011 passed by the learned single Judge.
5. It appears that the appellants are the Shebaits or the trustees of Ram Das Trust. The said trust manages Ram Janki Mandir situated at Lakhisarai. The respondent nos.7 to 9 - the writ petitioners were the tenants in the premises of the trust. It further transpires that the trust building has been demolished and a new construction is being made at the site. The respondent nos.7 to 9 - the writ petitioners have approached the Civil Court in Title Suit No.17 of 2005 for declaration of interest as tenants. Pending the said suit, the writ petitioners approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for a direction to the respondent-authorities to pay compensation to the writ petitioners for demolition of the property in question and for direction against the respondent nos.7 and 8, the present appellants, to re-induct the writ petitioners as the tenants in the constructions proposed to be made on the site.
6. The petition was contested by the State Government and the appellants. According to the appellants, the building had to be demolished under the Municipal Act as it had become unsafe.
7. The learned single Judge has held that the petitioners could not have been evicted in absence of eviction order made by the competent Court. The learned Single has allowed the writ petition to the extent that the appellants have been directed to provide to the petitioners alternative space commensurate to their earlier tenancy in the new building which has been raised at the site. In case the accommodation in the new construction is not possible, the petitioners be accommodated in some other part of the trust premises. Therefore, this Appeal.
8. To us, it appears that the learned single Judge has erred in exercising the power of judicial review conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution in the matter where private dispute between the landlord and tenants has been brought before this Court. A petition by the tenants substantially against the landlord can not be maintained under Article 226 of the Constitution, more particularly when the tenant has the specific statutory remedy under Section 17 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, Appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 29th April 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No.5971 of 2006 is set aside. CWJC No.5971 of 2006 is dismissed on the ground of maintainability alone.
10. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.
11. We clarify that we have not examined the merits of the claim made by the writ petitioners. The writ petitioners may avail of the statutory remedy, as may be advised.
