AJAI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner was a tenant under the respondent No. 5 of a shop room. The respondent No. 5 approached the respondent No. 2 with a request to the respondent No. 2 to remove the petitioner from the shop room in question for the purpose of effecting repairs thereto. The respondent No. 2 issued a notice to the petitioner. The petitioner responded to the notice and contended before the respondent No. 2 that the respondent No. 2 is not the competent authority to implement the request as made by the respondent No. 5. Before the respondent No. 2 the respondent No. 5 contended that the respondent No. 2 has authority to direct removal of the petitioner from the shop room in question in terms of Section 9 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1981. The petitioner contended before the respondent No. 2 that under Section 9 of the said Act, at the instance of the landlord, no order can be passed for effecting repairs.

(2.) On 12th January, 2001, the respondent No. 2 passed two orders. In the first order, the respondent No. 2 stated that in terms of the provisions contained in Section 9 of the said Act, a landlord cannot ask for assistance to effect repairs of a tenanted property. In the next order also passed on 12th January, 2001, the respondent No. 2 directed forceful removal of the petitioner from the shop room in question through the instrumentality of the local police for the purpose of effecting repairs but while doing so did not record in the order that under any provision of law he has any authority to pass any such order, despite recording that his authority to pass such an order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a written notes on arguments. Surprisingly while passing the order, the respondent No. 2 did not direct taking of inventory of the materials which were then lying in the shop room in question nor did he direct restoration of the shop room in question after repairs are done.

(3.) Before the respondent No. 2, as recorded in the second order passed on 12th January, 2001, it was contended by the petitioner that he is running the shop in question the same does not require any repair and that merchandise belonging to him for dealing in readymade garments are lying in the shop room in question. It is unfortunate that simply on the basis of the contention of the respondent No. 5 supported by the contention of the local police that the shop is lying closed, the respondent No. 2 did not direct taking of inventory of the goods which were lying in the shop room in question.