NANDALAL SINHA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by the landlord of a house situate in Hazaribagh town, challenging the validity of the allotment of his house made by the District Magistrate of Hazaribagh in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease. Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947. (hereinafter referred to as the Act). When the writ petition was filed on the 5th April. 1965, the order of allotment under challenge was the order of the District Magistrate, dated the 14th November, 1964 (Annexure C), which was in the following terms:--

(2.) The true scope of Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act has been explained in a Full Bench judgment of this court in Shiveshwar Prasad Sinha, District Magistrate of Monghyr, 1965 BLJR 876: AIR 1966 Pat. 144 (FB), where it was pointed out that Sub-section (2) of Section 11 is of a beneficial nature meant to provide quarters for Government servants who were transferred at short notice from one place to another. Some of the points urged in this petition are covered by that judgment and they were quite properly not pressed again in this petition.

(3.) The constitutional validity of Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act has been challenged in this petition on the ground that the aforesaid sub-section contravenes Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution This point also is concluded by a Division Bench judgment of this court in Smt. Santi Devi v. Deputy Commr.--District Magistrate of Hazaribagh. Misc. Judl. Case No. 939 of 1964, disposed of 8 8-1966 (reported in MR 1967 Pat 333) There It was pointed out that neither Article 14, nor Article 31, was contravened by the Legislature when it made special provisions in the interests of Government servants by inserting Sub-section (2) in Section 11 of the Act. Mr. Ghosh for the petitioner, however, urged that in that judgment the question of contravention of Article 19 was not decided and that he would like to urge that point here. According to him the power conferred upon the District Magistrate in Sub-section (2) of Section 11 to foist a tenant on an unwilling landlord amounted to an unreasonable restriction a landlord to hold his property and hence would contravene the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution This point, however, is also concluded in the aforesaid judgment, where the Bench observed :--