SHIVABRATA MOULIK Vs. PATNA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in the present writ petition is a tenant in a room measuring 11 ' -3" x 21 ' -3" of the building situated in Govind Mitra Road, Patna bearing holding no. 160, Circle No. 24 and is running his clinic in the said premises. He is aggrieved by the construction of a multi -storeyed building, namely, 'Govind Niwas ' being carried out by Jagdeep Prasad Verma (Respondent no. 3) on the basis of the plan sanctioned by the Patna Regional Development Authority, hereinafter referred to as 'the authority ', which, according to the petitioner, was obtained by suppressing/misrepresenting the facts of tenancy of this petitioner.

(2.) ACCORDING to the case of the petitioner, in 1998 ownership of the tenanted premises changed as Respondent no. 3 purchased the same. On 12.8.1998, the said Respondent no. 3 submitted Building Plan Case No. 664/98 which was sanctioned on 15.10.1998. It is alleged that Respondent no. 3 started harassing the petitioner and threatened him for which he lodged information with the Police. On 22.4.1999 a petition under Section 38 of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act was filed to cancel the sanction of the building plan. In view of the general direction of this Court in the case of Arun Kumar Muk -herjee V/s. State of Bihar & others, a petition was filed to initiate proceedings, but when no proceeding was initiated, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. According to the case of the petitioner, Respondent no. 3 suppressed.the facts of existing construction over the land in question and his tenancy over a portion thereof and got the sanction of the plan contrary to the Set -back Rules. It is stated that, as a matter of fact, Respondent no. 3 by swearing false affidavit that the front set -back area shall be cleared, has obtained the aforesaid sanction without taking into consideration of the fact that the petitioner is running his clinic in the existing construction and he cannot be evicted without due process of law and further that any forceful eviction will amount to interference in the peaceful enjoyment of the tenanted premises and will also amount to contravention of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982.

(3.) IT appears that Vigilance Case No. 66A/99 was started on the basis of the report submitted by the Assistant Director with respect to alleged deviations and a Misc. Case No. 7 of 1999 was started on the basis of the above mentioned petition submitted by the petitioner. Since both the cases involved the same party and same building, they have been heard together and disposed of vide order dated 31.5.2000, the validity of which has been assailed by the petitioner by filing supplementary affidavit in I.A. No. 3696 of 2000. The Vice -Chairman vide said order has noticed the fact that the site plan and building plan clearly showed the existing construction as well as the proposed construction. Respondent no. 3 also filed the documents to substantiate his title and ownership and affidavit stating therein that if the map plan was sanctioned he would dismantle and remove the existing construction falling in the front set -back of the building in question. The petitioner neither disputed the title or ownership of the land in question nor the existing construction as shown by Respondent no. 3 in his map plan. The Vice Chairman has also considered that the provisions of the Act or bye -laws do not require the landlord to furnish details of his tenants before any sanction is granted to him for development of his land. The petitioner also did not establish that there was any civil dispute pending in respect of the construction in question at the time of sanction given to Respondent no. 3. On consideration of the said facts, the Vice - Chairman did not find sufficient cause to revoke the sanction in question nor did it appear to him to be a case of material misrepresentation by Respondent no. 3. According to the Vice -Chairman, it appears to be a case of tenancy dispute for resolution of which both the parties were given liberty to move the competent Civil Court.