SHAMBHU SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to restore his possession over the shop situated in the market complex standing over the Khesara No. 1443 appertaining to Khata No. 141 in Ward No. 13 at Gopalganj, wherefrom he was dispossessed by the State-respondents in connivance with respondent no. 7. He also seeks inquiry into the circumstance under which, without any valid order passed by the competent court, the petitioner being a bona fide tenant has been dispossessed from the shop in question and for adequately compensating him for their arbitrary and illegal action as he claims that his printing machine and other valuable articles worth Rs. 2 lakhs have been removed behind back of the petitioner.

(2.) Shorn of the details brief facts of this case necessary for appreciation of the lis between the parties are narrated as under:

(3.) The petitioner had approached the father of respondent no. 7, namely, Dwarika Prasad, who was owing a "Khaparposh" market situated at Khesara No. 1443 appertaining to Khata No. 141 in Ward No. 13 at Gopalganj for letting out his shop in favour of the petitioner on rent for running the business of Printing Press & Book Binding. The landlord agreed and, accordingly, an agreement was executed by the parties. The shop was let out at the rent of Rs.160/- per month with a clause that it would be open for the landlord to get the premises vacated on one month previous notice. The deed of lease has been brought on record as Annexure-1. However, it does not disclose the period for which the same was executed and at the same time, it also does not appear to be a registered document. The petitioner, thereafter, installed the printing machines and started doing business. He has also annexed certificate dated 9.3.1983 issued by the Directorate of Industries, Government of Bihar declaring that the petitioner is running a small scale industry registered with the Directorate. It has been stated in the writ petition that the petitioner was regularly paying rent to the landlord and some receipts issued by the landlord have been brought on record as Annexure-3 Series. It has further been stated that the condition of the premises became dilapidated one and respondent no. 7 has asked Rs. 50,000/- from the petitioner in the name of renovation by giving an assurance that after such renovation, the shop would again be given to the petitioner on the old rent. On such assurance, petitioner gave Rs. 50,000/-with the condition that the same be either adjusted or refunded from the future rent after the shop would again be given to the petitioner. It is contended that all the machines as well as equipments remained inside the room itself. However, at the same time, it has also been stated that during renovation work the number of room was increased diminishing the area of the shop which was taken under tenancy and hence a reduced monthly rental of Rs. 250/ - was agreed to be paid. However, the amount of Rs. 50,000/- given to the father of the petitioner was neither adjusted nor refunded. It has been submitted that the petitioner tried to pay the rent through money-order. However, respondent no. 7 made a complaint before the State authorities alleging the petitioner to be a trespasser and has got him evicted from the premises and while doing so, the Dy. S.P., Town, Gopalganj has broken the lock of the shop and had taken away valuable machines and articles from the shop behind the back of the petitioner without preparing any list of inventory.