VIVEK ARORA Vs. PATNA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioners are the appellants against the judgment dated 23rd June, 2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No. 5431 ot 1999 [reported in 2000(4) PLJR 530J dismissing the writ application filed by them challenging the order passed by the Vice -Chairman, Patna Regional Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) directing the demolition of the part of the building which was in their possession as tenants.

(2.) HOLDING No. 599 A on plot No. 821 situate on the Fraser Road in the town of Patna is owned by Ehsan Raza and Talat Raja, Respondents 5 and 6 respectively in the appeal (for short respondents owner). They submitted a building Plan being Plan Case No. 593 of 1980 before the concerned authority for construction of a market complex on the said holding, which was passed on 5.3.82. After completion of market complex, two rooms were let out to the appellants in 1982. The appellants opened a furniture shop in the name and style 'Vinayak Furniture '. Later on, they started other business which was at the relevant time was in the name of 'Sri Vinayak Foods '. The respondents -owner submitted another building plan before the Patna Regional Development Authority created under the provisions of Bihar Regional Development Authority Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) for construction of seven storied building by making additions and new constructions, the portion which was in possession of the appellants was shown as front set back area in the plain. The said building plan was passed on 1.11.1995. when the appellants came to know about the said fact, on 23.8.1997 they filed application for review for cancellation of the plan. Prior to that, it appears that one Keshav Prasad Singh filed a case before the Vice -Chairman of the Authority complaining that the owners were making construction in violation of the plan. One of the grounds was that no land is being left by the owner as set back area in terms of the plan. The Vice Chairman on 26.8.1997 passed an order for removal of unauthorised construction including the tenanted portion on the ground that the said area has to be left out as a set back area according to sanctioned plan and no construction will be allowed to remain on the set back area. The Vice Chairman did not pass any order on the review application filed by the appellants for cancellation of the plan. The appellants filed appeal being Appeal No. 34 of 1998 before the appellate Tribunal created under the Act and the same was dismissed on 9.6.1999 on the ground that the tenant has no right to appeal. Thereafter the appellants filed the writ application in question, out of which this appeal arises, for a direction to the respondents authority to decide the review application, quashing the order passed on 26.8.1997 by the Vice -Chairman of the Authority and appellate order dated 9.6.1999. During pendency of the writ application, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the review application has been dismissed on 2.5.2000. The said order was challenged by the appellants and the learned Single Judge quashed the said order on the ground that the same was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants and a direction was issued to the authority concerned to pass a fresh order in the review application after hearing the appellants and then on 13.5.2000, the Vice Chairman of the Authority passed an order rejecting the review application.

(3.) THE appellants case is that admitedly they were tenants of the premises in question and the respondents owner got a building plan passed without informing the respondent authority about the tenancy. According to Section 11 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Building Act), the appellants, being tenants, cannot be evicted except in execution of a decree passed by the competent Court on any of the grounds mentioned therein. Sanctioning of the plan wherein the portion in possession of the appellants has been shown as set back area amounts to eviction of the appellants in breach of provision contained under Section 11 of the Building Act. Thus the sanctioning of the plan is in breach of Provision Contained in Section 37(2) of the Act which provides that if the proposed erection, alteration is in contravention of any provision of this Act, or any regulation made thereunder, or under any other law, sanction of the plan shall be refused.