Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. I now deal with the judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Amrit Varsha Hindi Dainik (supra). The same related to the question of tenancy between the petitioner and the Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board. The petitioner was a tenant of the Marketing Board and had fallen in arrears. The Board had, therefore, taken steps for the petitioner's eviction in terms of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, which was challenged in that writ petition. The learned Single Judge did hold in paragraph 8 of his judgment that"... except the buildings owned by the local authority or the State Government or the Central Government or the Bihar State Shwetamber Jain Trust Board or the Bihar State Digambar Jain Trust Board and the Wakfs under the control of the Bihar Wakf Board, as provided under Section 32 of the Act, the Act (the Rent Control Act) is applicable to all buildings within meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act in the whole of the State of Bihar. It is not the case of the respondent-Board that it comes under any of the classes mentioned in Section 32. There, thus, cannot be any doubt that the provisions of the BBC Act are applicable to the building in question...." It is, however, manifest from a plain reading of the entire judgment that the issue whether or not the Marketing Board is covered by the terms of Section 32 of the Rent Control Act was not contested by the parties. The matter had practically proceeded on concession. The same was the subject-matter of appeal before a Division Bench of this Court, the judgment of which is reported in 2000 (2) PUR 729 Amrit Varsha Hindi Dainik v. Bihar State Agri Market, Board. The appeal was substantially allowed by the Division Bench. The Board had submitted in appeal that the Marketing Board is a "local authority" within the meaning of Section 32 of the Rent Control Act and, therefore, the same is inapplicable to the tenancy created by the Board. The question was dealt with by the Division Bench in paragraph 16 of the judgment, and it is manifest that the Division Bench did not approve of the observations made by the learned Single Judge to the effect that the provisions of Rent Control Act are applicable in the present situation, apart from the position that the issue and before the learned Single Judge virtually proceeded on a concession on the part of the respondents and, therefore, there was neither a contest nor a discussion of the issue. On the contrary, as stated above, the observation made by the Division Bench in paragraph 16 of the Judgment is to the effect that the issue is still at large. The aforesaid judgments are, therefore, of no avail at all to the petitioner.