Dismissed

Sanjeev Kumar Roy v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC14 Sept 2012CWJC/162/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a tenant, filed a writ challenging refusal to hand over possession of a shop. The court held that eviction of the current occupant is not possible in summary proceedings and the final revisional order is binding. Writ dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Dispute regarding possession of shop adjourned to civil court; writ petition dismissed without directing eviction.

Sanjeev Kumar Roy Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.162 of 2012

¶3

====================================================== Sanjeev Kumar Roy, Son Of Late Yadunandan Roy, Resident Of Village & P.O. -Baheri Block- Baheri, District - Darbhanga

¶4

.... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga 3. Deputy Development Commissioner-Cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Darbhanga 4. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Darbhanga 5. Vijay Kumar Roy, Son of Bimal Roy Resident of Village And Post And Block - Baheri, District - Darbhanga

¶5

.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Uday Bhanu Roy, Advocate. Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate. For the State (Respondent Nos. 2 & 4) : Mr. Amadhesh Kumar, A.C. to S.C. 17. For Zila Parishad, Darbhanga: Md. Shahnawaz Ali, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA ORAL ORDER 5 14-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for Respondent No. 3. None appears for Respondent No. 5 inspite of valid service of notice. 2. Petitioner is a tenant of the shop let out by the Zila Parishad. He has filed this writ petition questioning the validity of the order dated 21.4.2011, Annexure-12, whereunder Sub-Divisional Officer has refused to hand over the possession of the shop in question to the petitioner as according to the Sub-Divisional Officer Respondent No. 5 is in possession of the said shop.

¶6

Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the said

¶7

Patna High Court CWJC No.162 of 2012 (5) dt.14-09-2012

¶8

¶9

order on the ground that earlier a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated between the petitioner and Respondent No. 5 which was disposed of under orders dated 18.9.2009, Annexure-6 observing that eviction of Respondent No. 5 from the shop in question is not possible in summary proceeding with further direction to the petitioner to remove his lock from the shop so as to enable Respondent No. 5 to enjoy possession of the shop. Aforesaid order was challenged in revision vide Cr. Revision No. 320/2009 which was allowed under order dated 30.09.2009, Annexure-9 setting aside the order dated 18.09.2009 taking note of the fact that learned Magistrate while passing order dated 18.09.2009 had advised the petitioner to secure eviction of Respondent No. 5 through Civil Court as it was not possible to evict him in a summary proceeding. After setting aside of the order dated 18.09.2009 the present order has been passed refusing to put the petitioner in possession of the shop as according to the impugned order petitioner had let out his shop to Respondent No. 5 and his eviction from the shop could be secured only through Civil Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order on the ground that while petitioner was asked to remove his lock under orders dated 18.09.2009, such direction was wholly contrary to the scope of Section 144 Cr.P.C.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner may be right

¶11

Patna High Court CWJC No.162 of 2012 (5) dt.14-09-2012

¶12

¶13

in submitting that while disposing of the proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. the Sub-Divisional Officer could not have given instruction to the petitioner to remove the lock from the shop. Presently, I am not to consider the legality of the direction given to the petitioner to remove the lock from the shop in question as the said direction has already been set aside under order dated 30.09.2009, Annexure-9 approving the observation of the Magistrate made under order dated 18.09.2009 that eviction of Respondent No. 5 from shop in question is not possible in summary proceeding and petitioner should approach Competent Civil Court. In the circumstances, it is quite evident that the Revisional Court was also conscious that eviction of Respondent No. 5 from the shop in question was not permissible in a summary proceeding. The order of the Revisional Court having become final, I am also not in a position to direct for eviction of Respondent No. 5 in these proceedings. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶14

P.K.P.

¶15

(V.N. Sinha, J)

Sanjeev Kumar Roy v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Kumar Roy v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanti Sinha Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Achaibat Sah Vs The Administrator, Bihar Housing Co-operative Fedration Ltd.

Ajay Chaudhary Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Md. Aamil Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Nityanand Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Mrs.Radha Rani Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.