MOHAMMAD RAFIQUE Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ application, the petitioner prays to quash an order dated 29-9-1990 passed by the Sub-divisional Officer Sadar, Motibari (Respondent No. 2) in H. C. Case No. 13/90 General Section Abdul Rashid Qurashi v. Md. Rafique (as contained in Annexure-2) directing him (the petitioner) to vacate his Gumti exercising powers under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act 1947. A further prayer has been made by him to quash an order dated 30-7-1991 passed by the Collector, East Champaran, Motihari in Revenue Appeal No. 40 of 1990-91 dismissing his appeal as not maintainable though after holding that the Sub-divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to pass orders.

(2.) By order dated 30-4-1992 notices were issued to respondents Nos. 2 and 6 intimating them that this Court intends to dispose of this writ application finally at the stage of its admission. Perused the writ application as also the counter-affidavit of Respondent No. 2. Mr. Shri Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, submita that the Respondent No. 2 had no power, to pass the impugned order under the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 which lapsed long time back and now there is a new act called the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. Respondent No. 2 has no such jurisdiction even under the 1982 Act. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents 1 to 4 submits that the attitude of the petitioner was to harass respondent No. 6 landlord and accordingly, the impugned order was correctly passed by Respondent No. 2 after a thorough enquiry and accordingly the petitioner is not entitled to any relief from this Court. Learned counsel for respondent No. 6 submits that in the peculiar facts and circumstance of the instant case, this Court need not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction and the writ application be dismissed. We have no doubt in o'ur mind that the Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar, Motihari (Respondent No. 2) lacked jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. The impugned order passed under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, which expired long time back and stands replaced by a new Act before the registration of the case instituted on the basis of the application of respondent No. 6 filed in the year 1990 is illegal and without jurisdiction. No provision could be brought to our notice to show that respondent No. 2 has such jurisdiction even under the 1982 Act. We are of the view that the Collector of the district East Champaran at Motihari had correctly observed to that effect. In this view of the matter, the impugned order as contained in Annexure-2 cannot be upheld and must be quashed in the interest of justice.

(3.) In the result, the impugned order as contained in Annexure-2 is quashed and this writ application is allowed to that extent but in the peculiar facts and circumstances, we make no order as to cost.