LAWS(PAT)-2004-1-106

JAI GOVIND PATEL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On January 14, 2004
JAI GOVIND PATEL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 2-8-2002 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhabhua in Case No. 133 of 2002 (Annexure-5).

(2.) Respondent No. 4 happens to be the owner of one of the shops in a cluster of shops namely, Sanjay Katra in the town of Bhabhua. He filed application for fixation of rent. According to him respondent No. 5 Sheo Pujan Mishra was his tenant. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhabhua, bv order dated 11-8-2001, on the basis of the purported compromise entered between respondent Nos. 4 and 5, directed the Office-in-charge of Bhaubhua Police Station to break open the lock and hand over the possession of the articles to respondent No. 5. In pursuance of the said order, inventory (Annexure-2) of the articles found in the shop, had been prepared and the shop in question was handed over to the landlord, i.e. respondent No. 4. Petitioner claiming to be the tenant having been inducted after the vacation of the tenanted premises to the original tenant Sheo Pujan Mishra filed appeal before the Collector which was registered as Appeal Case No. 26/2001-2002. The Collector, by order dated 17-1-2002 (Annexure-3), dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred C.W.J.C. No. 3004 of 2002 (Jai Govind Patel v. The State of Bihar and others) before this Court. This Court, by order dated 2-4-2002, disposed of the writ application with the following observation : The petitioner even today is free to make an application before the S. D. O. /Rent Controller for the said relief. It is made clear that if such an application is filed then the S. D. O. shall be obliged to issue notice to the said landlord and the alleged tenant who entered into the said compromise because the allegations are of serious nature and if not inquired into seriously, they may shake confidence of the general public in system itself.

(3.) In the light of the liberty given to the petitioner, he preferred application and by the impugned order, same has been rejected.