SUDHINDRA NATH GHOSH Vs. DIST MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the petitioners allege that they are owners of the house situated in holding No. 39 in circle No. 28 of the Patna Municipal Corporation, and in a portion of the house respondent No. 3, Sri Nigam Chakravarty, Sub-Deputy Collector, was in occupation as a tenant paying monthly rent for the portion so occupied. Respondent No. 3 was transferred to Dhanbad, and on the 3rd January, 1959, the petitioner received a notice from the District Magistrate of Patna. to the following effect :

(2.) The contention of the petitioners is that there is no compliance with the peremptory condition imposed by Section 11 (2) (a) of Bihar Act III of 1947 which is to the following effect :

(3.) There is no counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents challenging the facts stated by the petitioners, namely, that they did not receive a notice from respondent No, 3 of his intention to vacate the building and there was no notice given by the District Magistrate a week prior to the vacation of the building of the allotment of the house to respondent No. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the order of allotment, which was dated the 28th December, 1958, was actually served upon the petitioners on the 3rd January, 1959, a day after the house was vacated by Sri Nigam Chakravarty.