VIJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This Civil Miscellaneous Application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dtd. 3/8/2017, whereby Misc. Appeal No. 45 of 2016 filed on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge 10th, Patna. The said Miscellaneous Appeal was filed against the order dtd. 18/5/2016 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-III, Patna in Title Suit No. 5569 of 2014 whereby the petition under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed on behalf of plaintiff / petitioner has been rejected.

(3.) The brief facts of this case are that the plaintiff / petitioner has filed Title Suit No. 5569 of 2014 claiming that he is running a tea stall in the name and style of Vijay Tea Stall within the premises of Biscomaun Bhavan Annexi Building Gandhi Maidan Patna, since 1976. Later on, he was allowed to construct a gumti and to get electric connection in the year 1997. However, in the year 2003 shop of the petitioner was demolished by Patna Regional Development Authority (PRDA) as it was in the area of parking and sub-way. After that petitioner moved before this Court vide CWJC No. 13123 of 2003. This Court vide order dtd. 23/11/2007 gave a direction to the Biscomaun authorities to dispose of the representation of the plaintiff. Pursuant thereto Biscomaun authorities vide letter No. ESTATE /B/ 2121 dtd. 11/9/2008 allotted the plaintiff space measuring area 150 sq. ft. at ground floor in the premises for 11 months with terms and conditions stated therein. The agreement with respect to grant of licence was not executed between the parties but the petitioner is in possession of the said premises. On 12/6/2014 the Biscomaun authorities gave notice to the plaintiff / petitioner to vacate the suit premises and stated therein that the suit premises is in a dilapidated condition which requires renovation and it may collapse anytime. Biscomaun authorities decided to renovate and strengthen the building and awarded the contract to a builder for this purpose. All the 12 shop occupiers had been served with common notice to vacate the premises. The other shop keepers have vacated their respective shops. The petitioner objected the same and requested to grant some other space in the Biscomaun premises. The petitioner has neither vacated the shop nor accepted the proposal of shifting his shop in Kiosk and he preferred to file the suit being Title Suit No. 5569 of 2014 and an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Sec. 151 C.P.C. has been filed therein for temporary injunction which was dismissed by the trial court and the Miscellaneous Appeal has also been dismissed vide the impugned order.