Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

iii. Whether the present suit for eviction under BBC Act was maintainable and not barred in view of Section 58 of Bihar State Housing Board which aspect was not considered by either of the Court below?
iv. Whether in view of clause 8 and 16 of the registered deed of conveyance/lease dated 29.05.2013 (Ext. B) does the alleged cause of action for the suit survives and have the courts below not acted perversely in still decreeing the suit?

14. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the provision of Section 11(1)(f) and 11(1)(c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'BBC Act')operate in different field altogether whereas Section 11(1)(c) of BBC Act deals with own personal requirements of the plaintiff, on the other hand Section 11(1)(f) is applicable not to the requirement of the plaintiff rather to the requirement of Regional Development Authority or any Building Construction Regulatory Authority or the like and that too for building work. The Housing Board by no stretch of imagination is a Building Construction Regulatory Authority, rather, a body created for providing a shelter to homeless persons. In the present case, on the plain reading of the pleadings of the plaintiff, the suit could not have been decreed on the ground of Section 11(1)(f) of BBC Act, which is not at all attracted as the requirement as pleaded is not regarding Patna High Court SA No.393 of 2022 dt.21-06-2024 building work nor of the Building Construction Regulatory Authority rather the requirement pleaded is of the plaintiff on account of non registration of his final conveyance deed or by the Housing Board on account of unauthorized construction and such requirement does not come under the ambit of building work to be carried out at the instance of Building Construction Regulatory Authority. On the wrong notion both the courts below have decreed the suit on the ground of Section 11(1)(f) of the BBC Act, which is wholly perverse as the same is not at all attracted.

23. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that so far third substantial question of law is concerned, the plaintiff's case is exactly that he being a lessee of the Housing Board had sublet the tenanted shop premises to the defendant/appellant and for such subletting the plaintiff never made out a case that it was done with permission in writing of the Board. In view of the pleadings, the plaintiff himself pleaded that he made unauthorised construction of shop and let out to the defendant/appellant and thus in view of provisions of Section 58 read with Section 59, the applicability of provisions BBC Act is excluded by statutory operation and the suit is not maintainable as special statutory procedure has been prescribed under the Housing Board Act for eviction of a person in occupation of property of Housing Board and particularly a sublesse without written permission of the Board and as such the present suit is not maintainable in view of such special procedure and statutory exclusion of provisions of BBC Act to the subject matter of this suit in view of Section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that the suit will not lie if bar is express or by necessary implication. The present suit was not maintainable and as such both the courts below erred in decreeing the suit. The issue of maintainability based on Patna High Court SA No.393 of 2022 dt.21-06-2024 admitted fact being a pure question of law and going to the root of the matter is permissible to be raised in the second appeal also being a pure question of law.

34. It is admitted fact that the plaintiff-respondent without permission of the Housing Board subletted the shop to defendant-appellant as well as constructed the shop which is subject matter of the suit, without permission of the Housing Board.

35. The perpetual lease deed executed and allotted the lands for commercial cum residential purpose and not for any other purpose. It is specifically mentioned that clinic will be constructed on the ground floor and residence will be at the upper floor. It is also clear from the terms and conditions mentioned in perpetual lease deed (Ext. B) that if the allottee violates the terms and conditions of this deed as well as Hire Purchase Agreement dated 09.02.1976, the perpetual lease deed shall not continue as legal document, therefore, plaintiff has continuous threat of cancellation of his allotment by the Housing Board. So far applicability of Section 11 (1) (f) of the Patna High Court SA No.393 of 2022 dt.21-06-2024 BBC Act is concerned, the restrictions, right of obligation imposed under perpetual lease deed as well as Hire Purchase Agreement were of enduring nature. Under the aforesaid restrictions and terms and conditions, the landlord can demolish the premises on his own cost and construct a clinic. This clause relates to compulsory demolition at the instance of authority as per the terms and conditions. The requirement for the demolition of the said premises is necessary to protect the interest of the landlord and as per the Hire Purchase Agreement, Clause 8 clearly prohibits from subletting any part or the portion of the allotted lands to third party. It is also clear from the records that the said shop (suit premises) was not constructed with the permission or approval of the concerned authority. The terms and conditions in Ext. B and Ext. 2/B are obligatory on the part of the plaintiff. Therefore, Section 11 (1) (f) of the BBC Act is very much applicable to comply the requirement of bonafide necessity under the BBC Act.