LATA SONI Vs. JAMSHEDPUR NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As all the three appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 14/01/2000, passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. Nos. 1757 of 1999(R), 1835 of 1999(R) and 1867 of 1999(R) (reported in AIR 2000 Pat 141), and common question of law is involved in all of them, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. All the writ petitions had been preferred by the tenants against the threat of demolition by Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee (Committee for short) under Section 194 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act (Municipal Act for short) and for declaration that the threat of demolition of the tenanted premises by the Committee was absolutely illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and against the law. It was alleged that the action of threat for demolition was taken at the instance of Landlords (who are appellants here in these appeals) to evict the writ petitioners-tenants from the tenanted premises. During pendency of the writ petitions, one of the tenanted premises of the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 1867 of 1999(R), namely, Madhu Jha, was demolished. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 14/01/2000, held that the action of the Committee either giving threat of demolition or demolishing one of the tenanted portion of the building is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The respondents of the writ petitions were restrained from demolishing the tenanted premises and evicting the tenants, namely, the writ petitioners Nirmal Kumar Ghosh of C.W.J.C. No. 1757 of 1999(R) and M/s. Chagan Lal Dayal Jee of C.W.J.C. No. 1835 of 1999(R) with a further direction that in case the tenants have been evicted, to restore possession of the premises in their favour. So far as writ petition of C.W.J.C. No. 1867 of 1999(R), namely, Madhu Jha, is concerned, the respondents-appellants of L.P.A. No. 51 of 2000(R) were directed to put the said writ petitioner in possession of the premises from where she was forcibly dispossessed or to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000 (rupees fifty thousand) on account of her illegal dispossession.

(2.) The main questions arise for determination in these appeals are:

(3.) For determination of the issues, it is necessary to take into consideration the relevant facts, as mentioned hereunder: L.P.A. No. 52 of 2000(R) The writ petitioner-M/s. Chagan Lal Dayal Jee (C.W.J.C. No. 1835 of 1999R) was in occupation of a portion of the building premises of appellant Kanchan Ben Adesara (Landlord). The writ petitioner-Chagan Lal Dayal Jee was inducted as a tenant in a portion of the house by the erstwhile owner and landlord V. J. Pathak, which was subsequently purchased by Pasan Ben Adesara and appellant Kanchan Ben Adesara jointly vide sale deed dated 3/03/1987. Subsequently Pasan Ben Adesara executed a deed of relinquishment in favour of appellant Kanchan Ben Adesara vide registered deed dated 26/09/1995. The case of the tenant-M/s. Chagan Lal Dayal Jee was that the landlord-appellant, having become full owner of the building, started disturbing, in order to evict it (writ petitioner) from the premises. The landlord-appellant through her husband connived with the officers of the Committee to get the building demolished and to take possession of the demolished structure. On 9/07/1999, the officers of the Committee came to the site along with 200 labourers and started demolishing the building. A portion of the roof of the writ petitioner_s office was partially demolished that due to intervention of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, further demolition was stopped. The stand of the Committee before the learned single Judge was that an order under Section 194 of the Municipal Act was passed on 2/07/1999 on the basis of which the order of demolition was carried on, after due notice and compliance of the legal provisions of the Municipal Act. The landlord-appellant in her counter-affidavit, filed before the learned single Judge, stated, inter alia, that in the year, 1998, Senior Divisional Manager (Town Planning and Engineering), TISCO, Jamshedpur, examined the condition of the existing structure of Holding No. 3 and he, having found the same in a very unsafe condition, vide letter dated 20/08/1998, directed the Vice-Chairman of the Committee to send a notice to the party to demolish the structure without any delay. The Committee, accordingly, after due inspection and submission of report on enquiry by the Assistant Engineer, Jamshedpur, sent notice dated 26/05/1999 on her (appellant), directing therein, to get the premises vacated by 8/07/1999 so that the building can be demolished. The Special Officer, thereafter, by order dated 2/07/1999 directed to vacate the building in question and in pursuance of the order, passed under Section 194 of the Municipal Act, the building was demolished in presence of a Magistrate on 8/ 9/08/1999. Further case of the landlord-appellant was that after demolition of the building, she entered into an agreement with Chandrakant Adersa, one of the tenants, whereby, it was agreed upon that after construction of the new building, a portion of the same shall be allotted to him. L.P.A. No. 51 of 2000(R) The case of the writ petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 1867 of 1999(R), namely, Madhu Jha, was that she was inducted as a monthly tenant by the erstwhile owner, namely, Bhajan Singh Gumra, in respect of a portion of the building premises where she was carrying on business in the name and style of M/s. V-FOUR PUBLISHERS. The said owner Bhajan Singh Gumra sold the portion of his share to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 appellants vide sale deed dated 10/01/1997. After the said transfer, the petitioner started paying rent to the husbands of the appellants, namely, Pawan Soni and Prabin Soni. Further case of the writ petitioner was that she was carrying on the business of D.T.P., Computer Programming and Printing Press in the tenanted premises. On 8/07/1999 at about 9.00 a.m., all of a sudden husbands of the respondents-appellants, without any prior information demolished the roof of the office, with the help of the employees of the Committee, on the ground that the building has become very dilapidated. With the help of the police force, her articles like computer, printing press and other articles were thrown away, out of the office of the respondents-appellants and possession of the premises was taken over. The writ petitioner reported the matter to the Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur, but nothing was done. Later on, she could know that in a proceeding under Section 194 of the Municipal Act, part of the premises was illegally demolished, to help the landlord to take possession of the same. The landlords-appellants filed counter-affidavit before the learned single Judge. Their plea was that in a proceeding under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, drawn up by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dalbhum, being M. Case No. 274 of 1998, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate called for a report from the Special Officer of the Committee with regard to the condition of the building in question and it was then reported that the building is in a dilapidated condition. On the basis of such enquiry, made by the Committee, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate by order dated 10/06/1999, dropped the proceeding under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed the Committee to take suitable action under the relevant Section of the Municipal Act. On the basis of the aforesaid order, the Committee initiated a proceeding, issued notice under Section 194 of the Municipal Act and passed order for demolition of the building premises, in pursuance where of the building was demolished. L. P. A. No. 53 of 2000(R) The case of the writ petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 1757 of 1999(R), namely, Nirmal Kumar Ghosh, is that he was a tenant in a portion of the building premises of landlord-Darshan Singh, who neglected to repair the premises in question for several years. The writ petitioner then filed an application on 10/11/1995, before the House Controller, registered as H.R.C. Case No. 40 of 1995, for repair of the premises, which is a portion of the 1st Floor of the building. Thereafter, an enquiry was made by the Executive Magistrate, who recommended for immediate repair of the premises. The House Controller, accordingly, by order dated 26/07/1996, directed the landlord-Darshan Singh for necessary repairs of the tenanted premises. Subsequently, the landlord-Darshan Singh, instead of making repair, filed an application on 25/05/1997 in H.R.C. Case No. 40 of 1995, stating therein, that the building property in question has been transferred to one Sohan Sahgal and Lata Soni. Subsequently, respondent-appellant Prabin Kumar Soni claimed to be the husband of one of the purchasers. A proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated in order to put pressure on the writ petitioner for vacating the tenanted premises, which was ultimately quashed by the High Court in Cr. Revision No. 84 of 1998(R). The 5th respondent-appellant, thereafter, got a proceeding under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure initiated but it was dropped with an observation that the Committee may proceed under the Municipal Act. Subsequently, the writ petitioner came to know that the Committee had issued notice under Section 194 of the Municipal Act, in connivance with the landlord to demolish the tenanted parties of the building, with sole purpose to evict the tenant-writ petitioner. In the counter-affidavit before the learned single Judge, similar stand was taken by the Committee, which was not disputed by the appellant.