UNION CLUB, DHANBAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

(2.) The Petitioner club has come up before this Court in a writ petition claiming rights under a lease and its subsequent two renewals. A question was raised before this Court whether there was any lease at all? The original was never produced by the Petitioner. On being asked where is the original, the Petitioner showed inability to produce the original lease deed. The State was asked to investigate as to whether there was ever any original lease. The State has come up after thorough investigation that the lease which is being claimed to be in existence has not found its existence in the Registrar's office of the District Dhanbad as well as Purulia (West Bengal) which was the original district for Dhanbad. Therefore, the existence of the original lease deed, according to the government s reply, is not only a doubtful proposition but it has not found its place anywhere in the registers of the office of the Registrar for registering the lease. Therefore, the very question whether the Petitioner was ever granted a lease in first place is a doubtful question and the Petitioner's case is based on a copy of the original lease deed which has been supplied by the Petitioner to the Respondent State and the State has filed the document on record showing that this kind of document has been produced by the Petitioner before the State and this kind of document has never been registered either in Dhanbad or in Purulia. Thus, mere existence of the original lease is a doubtful proposition, according to the parties themselves and the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on the strength of his arguments, urged that since there are extensions, it should be presumed that there was a lease in existence. No such presumption can be raised when the very existence of the original is doubtful because such presumption would only be available if there is a semblance or hint that the original was ever there. The very existence of the lease in favour of the Petitioner is doubtful proposition.

(3.) In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 we do not think that this Court would ever come to rescue the Petitioner who want to establish a fact which may be non-existent but may be established or tried to be established by adducing evidence and for that, forum is otherwise and not a writ petition under Article 226. The claim of the Petitioner that he has been paying rent to the District Board or Zila Parishad, suffice it to say mere payment of rent to the statutory authority would not clothe the Petitioner with the right of being a lessee because the statutory authorities, by mere acceptance of rent, cannot create a lease. They are under obligation to follow the law as has been indicated by the learned Counsel himself that under 1993 Zila Parishad Act under Sections 78 and 79 there are provisions where Zila Parisha can create a lease but such lease having not been created, by mere acceptance of rent it cannot be said that the Petitioner can be converted into a holder of a lease and in that view of the matter if the Petitioner does not, on the basis of the documents produced before us, have a definite conclusive title in his favour then it can be said that he is holding the possession illegally and he is well known canon of law. Under Article 226 an illegality cannot be perpetuated since an illegal possession cannot be protected by seeking a writ. This Court feels that the Petitioner has chosen a wrong forum by coming to this Court.