ABHAY KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all the writ petitions the solitary question involved is as to whether the respondent No. 2, Bihar State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation's) has any authority under the land to forcefully evict the petitioners from the shop and premises which are in their occupation as tenant particularly in purported exercise of power under section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that a marketing complex was created within the premises of Nilayasa Hotel belonging to one Naresh Chandra Karn of Tilkamanjhi, Bhagalpur. He inducted the petitioners as tenant in respect of respective shop premises on a monthly rent. According to petitioners although initially a lease for a fixed period of five years was created but nevertheless the petitioners were allowed to continue as monthly tenant on payment of monthly rent which was regularly paid by the petitioners. This owner of the premises, namely, Naresh Chandra Karn took a loan from the respondent No. 2, Bihar State Financial Corporation. On account of nonpayment of loan the Corporation auction sold the entire premises, namely, Nilanjasa Hotel taking recourse of Section 29 of the said Act and respondent Nos. 5 to 10 who are the partners of M/s. Baba Complex purchased the said premises. It was further stated that Corporation realised its loan dues by the said auction sale and the title stands transferred in favour of respondent Nos. 5 to 10 in whose favour possession was also delivered on 6-4-1995 in respect of part of the premises were Hotel business is being run and with respect to the shop premises a symbolical delivery of possession was made. Pursuant to the steps being taken under Section 29 of the Bihar State Financial Corporation Act, respondent No. 2 the Corporation sealed the entrance gate of the hotel excluding the tenanted premises in occupation of the petitioners and the petitioners and other shop-keepers were threatened that if they refused to vacate the premises they shall be forcefully evicted. Being apprehensive of the power of the Corporation as also the private respondents the petitioners jointly filed Title Suit No. 179 of 1992 in the court of 2nd Munsif, Bhagalpur, for declaration that the plaintiffs are the tenants of the suit premises under defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and they cannot be evicted from the said premises without any order of decree of the competent court. They have further sought an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to disturb the peaceful enjoyment of the premises of the petitioners and restraining them from peaceful dispossession. It was further stated in the writ application that an application under O. 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed by the petitioners which were heard and the learned Munsif passed an order for maintaining status quo. Final hearing in the injunction matter has not been done and in the, said suit defendant No. 2 admitted the tenancy of the petitioners as well as their possession as a lessee. However, it was submitted that the petitioners ought to have handed over the vacant possession of the entire building. It was further stated that all of a sudden on 7-9-1996 at about 12.30 p.m. the respondent No. 4 along with Executive Magistrate arrived at the shop of the petitioners and ordered them to vacate the shop with immediate effect which they refused to do. The police force accompanying respondent No. 4 started ransacking process and threw some of the articles of the shop of the petitioners as well as other shop-keepers on the road and on protest assaulted the petitioners. The petitioners thereafter rushed to the office of the Corporation and demanded certain papers but they refused to supply any papers. The petitioners learnt that by Memo No. 2805 dated 6-9-1996 issued by the Superintendent of Police Bhagalpur police force was deputed along with an Executive Magistrate on the demand of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 for removing these petitioners from the shop premises. The petitioners therefore seek protection by filing these writ applications.

(3.) Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in all writ applications has challenged the authority of the respondents who forcefully tried to remove the petitioners from the shop premises which are in their occupation as tenant. Learned counsel submitted that the action of respondent Nos. 3 and 5 by putting the petitioners' shop under lock and seal is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that respondents have no authority to evict the petitioners without taking recourse to an appropriate legal proceeding in accordance with law.