Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Shri Kamal Nayan Choubey, learned Senior Counsel submits that this application was mala fide filed and mala fide entertained by the DCLR for obvious reason. Having purchased the property with tenants, the private respondents now wanted to evict the tenants to develop the property. The property is in the heart of town of Sasaram and is a very valuable property. The only way to get quick and summary eviction was through DCLR. In sum and substance, the application being for evicting defaulting tenants, it was squarely covered by a special Act dealing with landlord and tenant relationship that is Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the BBC Act) which provides for mode and manner in which a tenant in default can be evicted. The application (Annexure 8) itself shows that it is not alleged that petitioners were encroachers. It admits existence of petitioners as shop owners from the time when purchase was made. Thus, there was no reason whatsoever for the DCLR to entertain the petition. The private respondents are trying to achieve indirectly what they could not achieve directly through BBC Act.

Having considered the matter, on the facts as found by this Court, it cannot be but said that the whole exercise from the very beginning to the end was mala fide and wholly without jurisdiction. The application before the DCLR, even if it is accepted in entirety, made out a case of eviction of defaulting tenant. It is a matter exclusively covered by special Act being BBC Act, as noted above. There was no dispute of possession. There was no question of any encroacher. There was no dispute of any unauthorized occupation yet the DCLR, inspite of objection and inspite of being told that this Court was in seisin of the matter, proceeded to entertain the application and allow the same. This clearly establishes that the reasons were far from bona fide. The commercial interest was higher than the legal interest.

Thus, I find that, on the facts as alleged in the application before the DCLR, the DCLR had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. The jurisdiction lays with the Civil Court in terms of the BBC Act. That being so, the entire proceedings before the DCLR were wholly without jurisdiction and, thus, the final order of the DCLR dated 03.12.2012 is wholly without jurisdiction and has to be set aside.

Before parting, I must note two contentions, one made by either of the two Senior Counsels. Mr Dwivedi referred the application and stated that in the application, certain plots of lands are mentioned whereas in the writ petition, petitioners do not claim those plots. Unfortunately, this is only a diversionary tactics adopted. There is no dispute with regard to possession or otherwise of any plot. The dispute is with regard to shops. The application clearly states the municipal holding number of the premises from which eviction is sought for holding number is not of a plot but a premises which is nothing but a shop. The submission of Shri Dwivedi is misconceived. It is only a camouflage to invest jurisdiction which the DCLR lacked. It is rightly contended by Shri Choubey that efforts were made to snatch an order of eviction from the DCLR when the jurisdiction exclusively lays with Civil Court under BBC Act.