SITA DEVI Vs. COMMR OF BHAGALPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the petitioner, Shrimati Sita Devi, has moved this Court, under Article 226, of the Constitution of India, for a writ, in the nature of certiorari to call up and quash the order of the Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division dated 20th February, 1954, passed under Section 18B of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (Bihar Act III of 1947), hereinafter called "the Act".

(2.) The petitioner has a pucca house at Por-besganj, which was let out on rent to the Chairman, District Board, Purnea, opposite party No. 2 for locating Veterinary hospital and for the residence of the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, opposite party No. 3 on a monthly rental of Rs. 25/-. The petitioner, on the 19th April, 1950, made an application before the Controller under Section 11(1) (c) of the Act for eviction of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 from the house on the ground of personal necessity because of an impending marriage of her daughter. This application was rejected on the 17th June, 1950. The petitioner, thereafter., made a second application for eviction under Section 11(1)(c) & (d) of the Act on the ground of non-payment of rent and personal necessity before the Controller. The Controller, who was the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Araria, by his order dated the 27th May, 1953, found that the opposite party had "defaulted in month to month payment of rent from July, 1951" and further that the petitioner needed the house for her own use and therefore, he passed an order of eviction against the opposite party under Section 11(1) of the Act. Against this order of eviction, opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 took an appeal to the Collector under Section 18 of the Act, and, the Collector, Purnea, by his order dated the 21st December, 1953, upheld the order of the Controller, and, dismissed the appeal of the opposite party. They, then, moved the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, under Section 18B in revision against the aforesaid order. The Commissioner, by his order dated the 20th February, 1954, disagreed with the Controller and the Collector, and found that there had been no default in the payment of the rent and the plea of bona fide requirement was not established, and, therefore, he set aside the order of eviction passed by the two courts below, and allowed the application of the opposite party. Against this order, the present application under Article 226 has been made by the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. B. C. Ghose, appearing for the petitioner, has attacked the order of the Commissioner dated the 20th February, 1954, on the ground that the learned Commissioner has committed an error on the face of the record in reversing the orders of the Controller ana the Collector. His contention is that it was admitted that the opposite party did not pay the rent, and, as such, to continue his argument, the Controller was bound under Section 11 to order eviction of the opposite party. In support of his contention, he has relied on the following observation of the learned Controller: