DR. KAMAL PRASAD SAH, SON OF LATE CHATTU LAL SAH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA DARIYAPUR GOLA, P.S. Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Yogendra Mishra, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the Bihar State Handloom Weavers Co-operative Union (hereinafter referred to as the 'Union') and Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the State.

(2.) The challenge in the present writ application is to the Letter No. 205 dated 26.12013 of the respondent no. 3 as well as Letter No. 18 dated 30.01.2014 of the Managing Director, by which the agreement in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled and he has been directed to vacate the premises leased to him.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the lease deed was executed with him initially in the year 2008 and then in the year 2012, it was renewed for the next five years. It was submitted that once there is a registered lease deed, the only mode of eviction is through the due procedure in law by moving before the civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that the respondents without doing so cannot short-circuit the system and get the petitioner evicted from the premises which is under his possession under a valid registered lease deed agreement. Learned counsel further submitted that the terms and conditions of the renewed lease deed dated 21.12.2012, especially Clause-13, clearly stipulates that the State Union shall not put any hindrance in occupation of tenant or any person claiming under him and he shall continue to enjoy the rent hold property quietly and peacefully till the existence of the Rent Agreement. Learned counsel submitted that once the respondents have executed the said lease agreement, the terms and conditions are binding on both the parties and cannot be given a go-by and straightway eviction cannot be effected. Learned counsel further submitted that even the initial decision of the Managing Director-cum-Administrator of the respondent Co-operative Society dated 26.12.2013 has been passed under the direction of the Principal Secretary, Industries Department which is impermissible, since the decision has not been taken independently by the Union. Finally, learned counsel summed up his argument by reiterating that the summary direction by the respondents to the petitioner to vacate the premises in question cannot be sustained, without them having taken recourse to the procedure established in law.