SURAJ NARAIN SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to call up and quash the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Santhal Parganas at Dumka, contained in annexures 'A' and 'D' appended to the writ application, allotting a house situated in the town of Dumka to respondent No. 3, According to the petitioner's case, the house in question had been let out to one Shri Yogendra Mandal as a tenant by the landlord. Yogendra Mandal vacated the house on 31st August 1966 and gave vacant possession to the petitioner's brother Shri Sheo Prasad Sah who is said to be the owner of the house. Sheo Prasad Sah occupied the house with his family members. On the 10th of September, 1966, the petitioner received an order from the Deputy Commissioner (respondent No. 2) intimating that Yogendra Mandal had given notice of vacating the house and the Deputy Commissioner had . allotted the house to Shri Ganesh Prasad Saha (respondent No. 3) in exercise of his powers vested in him under Section 11(2)(a) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, (hereinafter called the Act). A copy of the intimation of the order of the Deputy Commissioner is annexure 'A'. The petitioner sent a reply on 13th September, 1966, to the Deputy Commissioner informing him that vacant possession of the house in question had been given on 31st August, 1966 and since then the house was in personal use and occupation of the landlord and his family members. His case further is that the house had been vacated by Yogendra Mandal "without giving 15 days' previous notice of his intention to vacate the house and the order allotting the holding in question to Shri Ganesh Prasad Saha had been obtained by making incorrect representation and by suppressing the correct state of affairs. A copy of the letter dated 13th September, 1966, however, has not been annexed to the writ application. The petitioner, thereafter, states that he received a notice dated 15th October, 1966 on 19th October, 1966, directing him to vacate the house or to show cause. A copy of this notice is annexure 'B'. The petitioner filed a show cause, a copy of which is annexure 'C. The Deputy Commissioner, by his order dated 24th July, 1967, rejected the objection of the petitioner and ordered that the allottee be given possession with police force, if necessary. A copy of this order is annexure 'D'.

(2.) Only two points have been urged in support of the rule issued on the application filed by the petitioner; (i) that the petitioner was not the owner and the landlord of the house, in question and, therefore, it could not be allotted to respondent No. 3 on intimation to him, and (ii) that since the landlord had come in possession of the house before the making of the allotment, the order of allotment is invalid.

(3.) If the first point urged on behalf of the petitioner is pushed to its logical conclusion then he will have no right to move this Court for grant of a writ to call up and quash the order of the Deputy Commissioner. If the house does not belong to him or if he had not come in possession of the house after it was vacated by Yogendra Mandal, any new allotment made will not affect his right in the least to enable him to move this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. But, on the findings of the Deputy Commissioner, as recorded in his order dated 24th July, 1967 (annexure 'D'), he is virtually the owner and the landlord of the house although technically the house stands in the name of his brother. In either view of the matter, the first point can not succeed.