Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

There was no settlement in favor of the writ petitioner/Uday Kant Jha, which fact was admitted by him in the writ petition. With the vesting of Zamindari in the Government and there being no settlement of land in favour of Uday Kant Jha by the ex-landlord, there did not exist any relationship of landlord and tenant.

After examining the provisions of Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act'), Patna High Court L.P.A No.1660 of 2016 dt.12-01-2023 the learned Single Judge was of the view that the provisions contained therein were aimed at preventing a privileged tenant from being ejected from the homestead land, except on the grounds mentioned in Section 8 of the Act viz ejection could only be on the ground that the tenant had used the holding or any part thereof in a manner which rendered the holding unit for the purposes of tenancy and on the ground that the tenant has failed to pay the rent of the holding for two years and that no privileged tenant would be so ejected except in execution of an order of ejectment passed by the Collector and secondly that no such order passed on the ground of failure of rent was to be executed, if the full amount of the arrears of rent together with interest if any; or where there has been a decree for such arrears, the amount payable under such decree, was deposited with the Collector within three months from the date on which the order was signed.