Dismissed

Shyam Sundar Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC4 Mar 2014CWJC/8893/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged non-payment of rent for a government-run department office. Court directed payment of dues and penal interest, rejecting the requirement to submit vouchers for discharge of liability.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to pay Rs. 58,000/- as arrears of rent within two weeks failing which respondent shall pay Rs. 10,000/- by way of consolidated interest.

Shyam Sundar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Patna HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8893 of 2013

¶2

====================================================== Shyam Sundar Singh Son Of Late Deoraj Singh Resident Of Arwal Sipah Ward No. 06 P.O. And P.S. Arwal, District - Arwal .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The State Of Bihar through the Commissioner Department of Labour, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Jehanabad 4. The Labour Superintendent (Agriculture Labour) District - Jehanabad 5. The Sub Divisional Officer - Cum - Building Control Officer, Arwal

¶3

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra Mr. Ashok Kumar For the State : Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, G.P.22 Mr. Sushil Kumar Singh A.C. to G.P.22 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 4 04-03-2014 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The matter was considered on 11.02.2014 when the

¶4

following order was passed:-

¶5

“Counsel for the petitioner and the State are present.

¶6

The petitioner let out his house to the Labour Department of the Government for running the office of the Superintendent (Agriculture Labour), Jehanabad. An agreement was signed on 01.12.2008. The Sub Divisional Officer fixed the rent @ 1000/- per month same as disclosed in the agreement (Annexure-1). The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not paid the rent in respect of aforesaid for even a single month. The matter was considered on 16.01.2014 when on the request of the counsel for the State two weeks’ time was allowed to file counter affidavit. No counter affidavit has been filed.

¶7

Patna High Court CWJC No.8893 of 2013 (4) dt.04-03-2014

¶8

2 / 3

¶9

A.C. to G.P.22 states that, by way of last chance, he may be granted an opportunity to ensure filing of counter affidavit.

¶10

Looking to the averments made in the writ petition, learned counsel for the State has fairly stated that he will also persuade the respondents to pay the admissible dues to the petitioner in the meanwhile.

¶11

As prayed, post the matter after two weeks in Admission II.”

¶12

In the light of the said order, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 4 wherein factum of non payment of the rent to the petitioner for the period 01.12.2008 to 30.09.2013 has not been disputed. It is also not in dispute that the fund for payment of arrears of rent has also been received by the concerned respondent. The respondents have, however, stated that the petitioner is required to submit voucher(s) (Abhisharav) whereafter the dues shall be paid to the petitioner. I fail to understand as to why and how the respondents have insisted on submission of voucher(s), particularly when the agreement entered by and between the parties clearly stipulates that the tenant i.e. respondent State was obliged to pay the rent in the sum of Rs. 1000/- per month for the premises belonging to the petitioner for running the government office.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed out that while taking vacant possession of the premises earlier in

¶14

Patna High Court CWJC No.8893 of 2013 (4) dt.04-03-2014

¶15

3 / 3

¶16

occupation of the respondents on 30.09.2013 it was endorsed by the petitioner that the rent for the period 01.12.2008 to 30.09.2013 remained outstanding with the respondents. The total amount for the period 01.12.2008 to 30.09.2013 is grossed at Rs. 58,000/-.

¶17

Consequently, this court disposes of the application by directing the concerned respondent, particularly the Labour Superintendent (Agriculture Labour), Jehanabad (respondent no. 4) to pay the aforesaid amount in the sum of Rs. 58,000/- (or the correct value of the rent) in favour of the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order failing which the respondents shall also be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by way of consolidated interest on the outstanding dues payable to the petitioner which remained hitherto unpaid. In the event of delay in making payment of arrears of rent in favour of the petitioner and thereby paying the petitioner additional sum of Rs. 10,000/-, it will be open to the State respondent(s) to initiate appropriate proceeding for recovery thereof from the erring official/respondent.

¶18

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)

¶19

HR/-

Shyam Sundar Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Sundar Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Kumar Sinha Vs The Patna Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Most. Kiran Bala and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Swarna Enterprises Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Umesh Prasad Vs The Bihar State P

Shyam Nandan Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Mushafir Yadav @ Moshafir Prasad Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.