The Patna High Court dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal against a Single Judge order that restored possession of a shop to tenants forcibly evicted without proper notice. The Court held the eviction action was unjustified and the landlord must follow legal eviction procedures.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.209 of 2019
======================================================
Smt. Munni Devi Wife of Ranjeet Mandal, resident of Mohalla Katari Police Station- Chandauti, District- Gaya.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Gauhar Ali For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.K. Ghosarwe
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER
for the appellant and Mr. S.K. Ghosarwe, the learned counsel for the State.
The appellant is a landlord of a shop in which
the respondent nos. 7 and 8 were tenants, who were forcibly evicted and the shop was sealed at the instance
Patna High Court L.P.A No.209 of 2019(3) dt.10-11-2022 2/3
of the District Magistrate acting on the complaint of the appellant/landlord.
On the tenants having approached this Court against the sealing of the shop as it was unjustified in the absence of any notice to them or observance of due process of law in that regard, the learned Single Judge found the action of the District Magistrate to be completely bad in the eyes of law and directed for restoring the possession respondents (here in this appeal) of the shop in which they were tenants for a long time.
We have no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, who was absolutely justified in directing for restitution of the shop to the respondent nos. 7 and 8, who were lawfully continuing as tenants. If at all the landlord/ appellant had desired to evict his tenants, she had to undergo the rigors of the law for evicting them, had they been non-compliant with the terms of the agreement.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.209 of 2019(3) dt.10-11-2022 3/3
The appeal stands dismissed but without any
order as to costs.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J)
( Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
sunilkumar/-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Single Judge erred in directing restoration of possession to the tenants after their forcible eviction and sealing of the shop without due process.
Whether the landlord is entitled to the eviction of tenants without following the rigors of the law.
Smt. Munni Devi
The State of Bihar
Ram Pravesh Yadav
Sachin Yadav
Ashutosh Kumar
Nawneet Kumar Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
