RAM ADHIKARI DEVI Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner landlady is the owner of the house in question which is situated in the town of Hajipur. She had let out the ground floor of this house in April 1972 on a rent of Rs. 110/- per month to Shri Ram-bilash Ram respondent 3 who was a Government servant posted as Assistant Superintendent of Police at Hajipur. An agreement was executed on 20-4-72 a copy of which is annexure 1. The petitioner's case is that respondent 3 informed her orally on 30-10-72 that he would be vacating the demised premises by the end of November. 1972. Actually he vacated the premises on that date, i.e. 30-11-72. The petitioner came in actual physical possession, according to her of the premises on 1-12-72. Since she needed the premises for her own occupation and use she filed an application on 2-12-72 before the District Magistrate, Vaishali. a copy of which is annexure 2. The District Magistrate rejected her application on 6-12-72 by his order contained in annexure 3. But before that he purported to allot the house to Shri J. K. Sinha respondent 2, Superintendent of Police designate to be posted at Hajipur to be the Superintendent of Police of the new district Vaishali. The petitioner filed this writ application on 8-12-72 with a prayer to quash the orders contained in annexures 3 and 4. This application was admitted on 11-12-72 by a Bench of this Court. The prayer for stay was refused but a rule returnable within two months was issued. A supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner on 7-2-73 making certain corrections in her statements in the petition. In her petition she had stated that respondent 3 had given the vacation report to the District Magistrate of Vaishali on 28-11-72, but on inspection of the record it was found that that intimation was given on 27-11-72 and was received in the office of the District Magistrate on that very date.

(2.) The argument on behalf of the petitioner is (1) that the allotment of the premises in question could not be made by the District Magistrate, respondent 1 in favour of respondent 2 before giving such intimation to the petitioner as was required by Section 11 (2) (a) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease. Rent and Eviction) Control Act. 1947 (hereinafter called the Act); (2) that the allotment had to be made within one week of the receipt of the notice of vacation or impending vacation by the erstwhile tenant; and (3) that no order of allotment could be made in favour of respondent 2 after the tenancy came to an end on 30-11-72.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State on 5-3-73. Although it was filed a bit late, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case we accepted it. In the counter-affidavit the assertion of the petitioner that respondent 3 had put her in possession of the premises is denied. Respondent 3 vacated the premises but did not put the petitioner in possession of it with effect from 1-12-72. On 27-11-72, according to the statement in the counter-affidavit, respondent 3 had written to respondent 1 that the former was likely to vacate the house. It is not disputed that this intimation was received on 27-11-72; respondent 1 had passed the order of allotment in the file on 1-12-72 allotting the house to respondent 2 but formal order could not be communicated before 5-12-72. The order passed by the District Magistrate on 6-12-72 is correct. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.