Patna High Court
Ramjanm Sahni vs The State Of Bihar on 1 February, 2024
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9543 of 2022
======================================================
1. Ramjanm Sahni Son of Pankhi Sahni @ Vanshi Sahni, Resident of Village
and P.O.- Basantpurpatti, P.S.- Saraiya, District- Muzaffarpur, Shop No.- 02.
2. Ramesh Thakur Son of Jangi Thakur @ Janaki Thakur, Resident of Village
and P.O.- Madhaul, P.S.- Saraiya, District- Muzaffarpur, Shop No.- 10.
3. Sunil Kumar Son of Sita Ram Sah, Resident of Village and P.O.- Madhaul,
P.S.- Saraiya, District- Muzaffarpur, Shop No.- 06.
4. Sacchidanand Prasad Son of Umesh Prasad Sah, Resident of Village and
P.O.- Basantpurpatti, P.S.- Saraiya, District- Muzaffarpur, Shop No.- 03.
5. Raja Babu Son of Parmanand Sah, Resident of Village- Basaitha Bazar,
P.O.- Basantpur Patti, P.S.- Saraiya, District- Muzaffarpur, Shop No.- 04.
6. Phool Mohammad Son of Md. Multaan @ Md. Sultaan, Resident of Village
and P.O.- Madhaul, P.S.- Saraiya, District- Muzaffarpur, Shop No.- 09.
7. Jainul Miyan Son of Sarfuddin Miyan, Resident of Village- Damodar
Chhapra, Post- Basantpur Patti, P.S.- Saraiya, District- Muzaffarpur, Shop
No.- 05.
8. Kameshwar Sah Son of Mahesh Lal Sah, Resident of Village and P.O.-
Basantpurpatti, P.S.- Saraiya, District- Muzaffarpur, Shop No.- 01.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Rural Development Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.
3. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum- Chief Executive Officer, Zila
Parishad, Muzaffarpur.
4. The District Engineer, Zila Parishad, Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pramod Rajpati, Advocate.
For the State : Ms. Rashmi Ranjan, AC to SC-7.
For the Zila Parishad : Mr. Sunil Kumar Thakur, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-02-2024
Heard Mr. Pramod Rajpati, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioners; Ms. Rashmi Ranjan, learned AC to
SC-7 for the State and Mr. Sunil Kumar Thakur, learned counsel
Patna High Court CWJC No.9543 of 2022 dt.01-02-2024
2/5
for the Zila Parishad, Muzaffarpur.
2. Petitioners have sought for quashing of the Notice
No.6 dated 30.04.2022 issued by the District Engineer, Zila
Parishad, Muzaffarpur contained in Annexure -3 to the writ
petition seeking reply as to why the shops allotted to the
petitioners should not be cancelled and the petitioners have been
directed to evict the shops within 48 hours as the petitioners
have violated the terms and conditions of the agreement dated
17.09.2020
, Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The petitioners
were allotted shops by the District Engineer, Zila Parishad vide
Letter No. 178 dated 17.09.2020 pursuant to decision dated
01.02.2020 taken by the Zila Parishad Board, Muzaffarpur.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that the notice dated 30.04.2022 was never
served upon the petitioners and behind the back of the
petitioners, the petitioners were forced to evict the shops within
48 hours in terms of the alleged notice dated 30.04.2022.
Learned counsel submitted that the order has been passed ex-
parte and informed that the petitioners are still in occupation of
shops and have not been evicted till date.
4. Per contra, Mr. Sunil Kumar Thakur, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the Zila Parishad, Muzaffarpur
Patna High Court CWJC No.9543 of 2022 dt.01-02-2024
submitted that the petitioners were provided with ample
opportunity and they were also communicated the decision of
the Zila Parishad Board dated 01.02.2020. For violating the
terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the
petitioners and the Zila Parishad, by not depositing due rent for
the month of April 2022, the petitioners were served with a
notice dated 30.04.2022 before cancellation of allotment of
shops. In spite of 19 days time provided to the petitioners to file
their reply, they declined to do the same. The District Engineer,
Zila Parishad, Muzaffarpur had no alternative than to pass a
reasoned order cancelling the agreement and directed the
petitioners to evict the shops vide notice dated 30.04.2022.
Petitioners have given incorrect information that they are still
occupying the said shops.
5. Ms. Rashmi Ranjan, learned counsel has tendered
her appearance on behalf of the State.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties as well as the fact that the petitioners had
entered into the agreement dated 17.09.2020 and they were
conscious of the terms and conditions of the agreement. As the
petitioners have defaulted in making payment of rent of April
2022 which is in violation of the terms and conditions of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9543 of 2022 dt.01-02-2024
agreement, the District Engineer, Zila Parishad, Muzaffarpur as
per the direction of the Commissioner issued notice to the
petitioners dated 30.04.2022. The petitioners in spite of the said
notice and 19 days time granted to them have chosen not to
reply the said notice. In the writ petition, there is no pleading
that the notice was not received by the respective petitioners and
denial at this stage by making an oral submission cannot be
accepted.
7. The District Engineer, Zila Parishad, Muzaffarpur
had no option than to pass order dated 30.04.2022 informing the
petitioners that in breach of the agreement, the agreement dated
17.09.2020 has been rescinded and the petitioners are required
to evict the shops within 48 hours. Petitioners have informed
that the petitioners are still occupying the shops, however, the
same has been denied by Mr. Sunil Kumar Thakur, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the Zila Parishad.
8. The question is disputed to the effect that in case
the petitioners are still occupying the shop, the District
Engineer, Zila Parishad, Muzaffarpur must follow the due
process for removing the petitioners. It is made clear that the
allegation is that of default of agreement and the petitioners are
tenant. There is bar of Section 32 as per the provision of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9543 of 2022 dt.01-02-2024
Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982, as
the respondent - Municipal Corporation is a local body within
the meaning of the said Act.
9. With the above observation, the writ petition stands
disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
mantreshwar/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 02.02.2024
Transmission Date N.A.
