Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: bbc act in Mahesh Thakur vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 2 March, 2015Matching Fragments
. According to him, even if the petitioner has violated any terms and conditions of such agreement or tenancy, he could have Patna High Court CWJC No.5704 of 2010 dt.02-03-2015 been directed to be evicted from the shop in question only after resorting to the procedure prescribed under The Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction ) Control Act, 1982 (In short "BBC Act"). It is contended that the authority concerned without following the procedure prescribed under the law and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner has passed the impugned order and, therefore, on the ground of infraction of the principles of natural justice alone, the impugned order/ resolution is liable to be set aside and quashed by this Court.
4. Learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and has submitted that, in fact, as per clause-15 of the agreement (Annexure-6), the petitioner is/was liable to be evicted from the shop in question under the provisions of The Bihar Government Premises (Rent, Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1956 (In short "Act 1956") and the rules made thereunder. According to him, the shop in question is on a Government land, therefore, the provisions of the BBC Act shall not apply in the present case. However, he has not been able to dislodge the claim of the petitioner that before passing the impugned order/ resolution, as contained in Annexure-1, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner.
6. This Court further finds that for eviction of the petitioner from the shop in question, whether he is required to be subjected to the Patna High Court CWJC No.5704 of 2010 dt.02-03-2015 proceeding under the BBC Act or under the provisions of the Act 1956 have not been examined and taken into consideration either by the respondent District Magistrate or by the respondent District Education Officer or any other competent authority. There is no dispute that the petitioner was inducted over the shop in question by virtue of the agreement as contained in Annexure-6, though, the period of tenancy is already over.