Patna High Court
Bishram Tiwari vs P.R.D.A.Patna & Ors on 4 December, 2008
Author: Ajay Kumar Tripathi
Bench: Ajay Kumar Tripathi
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.8525 OF 1993
In the matter of an application under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
-------
BISHRAM TIWARI S/O KAPILDEO TOWARO R/O MOHALLA
SHRIKRISHNAPUR, 153-F, PS. SRIKRISHNAPURI, TOWN & DISTT -
PATNA---PETITIONER
Versus
1. THE PATNA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THROUGH ITS
SECRETRY, P.R.D.A, SITUATED AT MOHALLA DAK BUNGLOW ROAD
PS. -KOTWALI TOWN & DISTT. PATNA
2. THE VICE CHAIRMAN THE PATNA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
(PRDA) ,PATNA---------------------- RESPONDENTS
-----------
For The Petitioner :MR. SIYA RAM SHAHI, Advocate
For The Respondents: Mr. VINAY KIRTI SINGH, Advocate
---------
P R E S E N T
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI
*****
A.K.Tripathi,J By order dated 23.10.1992 contained in annexure-
1 the then Vice Chairman of erstwhile Bihar Patna Regional
Development Authority in exercise of power under section 85(4)
of the Bihar Regional Development Act (hereinafter referred to as
to Act) has ordered eviction of the petitioner from Flat No. 33A in
Block No. 3 located in Mohalla- Rajendra Nager colony, Patna.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is
that he was inducted as a lessee in terms of an agreement entered
between the then Patna Improvement Trust and certain terms and
conditions have been laid down in the lease agreement. Petitioner
could be evicted only in breach of the agreement contained in
annexure-2 and not for any other reason.
The Vice Chairman has evicted the petitioner on
the ground that since he was already in possession of another plot
of land allotted to him by the Regional Development Authority
-2-
and keeping in mind the principle one person one property, the
eviction against him has been effected. Whatever the reasoning or
motivation behind the said order but the eviction under provision
of the section 85(4) of the Act can only be effected if it is held that
the property is in illegal occupation. In the present case it cannot
be said that the petitioner is in illegal possession of the property in
question because he was inducted as a tenant. Thereafter if he has
committed any breach of the agreement then the reasoning given
by the concerned authority must reflect that breach.
In the order the breach of condition do not emerge
to be the primary consideration in effecting eviction of the
petitioner and therefore the order is not in consonance with section
85(4) of the Act. Annexure-1 therefore stands quashed.
This writ application is allowed. But it is open to
successor in interest of Patna Regional Development Authority
(now Patna Municipal Corporation) to do the needful in
accordance with law if they are still interested in asserting their
right as a landlord.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)
Patna High Court, Patna
Dated the 4th December, 2008
NAFR (RPS)