SHYAM BABU SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent State of Bihar.

(2.) The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following reliefs:

(3.) Mr. Yogendra Mishra, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner challenging the validity of proviso to Sec. 11(1) (c) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') submits that Sec. 11 of the Act prescribes the grounds for eviction of a tenant and one of the grounds mentioned therein under Sec. 11(1)(c) is eviction on the ground of personal necessity of the landlord. It is submitted that once the landlord proves the ground of personal necessity, then the proviso comes into play and the same is a clog on the powers of the Court in passing a decree of eviction. Challenge to the constitutional validity of the said proviso is mainly not only on the ground of the said proviso being vague, but the powers given therein to the Court are unbridled, ambiguous and unguided; either in the Act or the Rules framed thereunder. There is no proper guidelines for the Court with respect to partial eviction and as such the proviso being unworkable, the provision is fit to be struck down. It is submitted that though the proviso prescribes for partial eviction from part of the building, however, the Courts have been passing orders for consideration of partial eviction even from a room and all this happens because of vagueness, ambiguity and absence of any guidelines.