RAKESH SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) ON 10.12.2007 this Court had occasion to record certain thing which does not speak well about the way the then Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Narkatiyaganj had acted in the matter. The only thing which this Court records and what has emerged from the dispute between the parties is that the method or methodology evolved for getting rid of an inconvenient tenant in the opinion of this Court cannot be permitted. No doubt on a petition filed by petitioner under Section 10 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 a proceeding was initiated. It is apparent from the reading of the said petition that the landlord was trying to create problems in peaceful enjoyment, the use of the tenanted property as well as the amenity under law. Subsequently, it seems that the Sub - Divisionaf Magistrate went out of his way and evicted the petitioner from the premises in question and removed all his goods.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondent nos. 6 and 7 is represented through their counsel and he has no explanation to offer to the litigation. His primary contention and objection is that they were not even properly noticed in the matter and certain orders were passed which cannot be attributed to them.