ABANINDRA NATH DAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing an order of the District Magistrate of Saran (Respondent No. 2) dated the 22nd May, 1973 (Annexure '6'), massed under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The facts leading to the passing of that order and the filing of this application before this Court may briefly be stated. On the 1st April. 1941, the petitioner leased his house situate in the town of Chapra to the Union of India for use of the Commissioner of Income-tax, for office purposes. The lease was for three years only and it was again renewed from time to time till the year 1972. The Office of the Income-tax Department was located in the building. On the 17th December, 1972, the office was shifted to another place, and this fact was communicated to the petitioner on the 18th December, 1972. The Income-tax Department also started vacating the premises from that date and vacated the same completely on the 5th February, 1973. The Department stopped payment of rent from August, 1972, and there was some communication between the petitioner and the Department with regard to that and it appears, ultimately, the Department has paid the rent for the period from August, 1972, till the 5th February, 1973. On the 13th February, 1973, Respondent No. 2 allotted the house to the Executive Engineer. Buildings Division, Public Works Department (Vide Annexure '3'). On the 26th February, 1973, some persons on behalf of the Executive Engineer (Respondent No. 3) forcibly opened the lock of the house and occupied it. On the 6th of March, 1973, the petitioner filed an application before Respondent No. 2, challenging the order of allotment (vide Annexure '5'). The impugned order (Annexure '6') has been passed on this application.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that under Section 11 (2) (a) of the Act, which reads as follows, Respondent No. 2 could not have allotted the house to Respondent No. 3:--

(3.) No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 4, the Commissioner of Income-tax, admitting the facts alleged by the petitioner that the house was let out to the Union of India for office purposes, but, at the same time asserting that all the arrears of rent have been paid.