The High Court opined that the 4th respondent may seek appropriate remedy by bringing a suit under he Bihar Buildings Lease, Rent Eviction Control Act.
By judgment dated 10.2.1993 a Divison Bench of the High Court quashed Annexure Ext.
3196/Patna dated 22.11.1973 Annexure Ext.
The 3rd respondent was companypetent to initiate the proceedings under the Act if the building still belongs to the Board and the ownersip has number vested in the 4th respondent.
It appears from the petition of the Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board Adityapur Jamshedpur that you are illegally and unauthorisedly living in HOuse NO.
The averments in thsi regard, companytained in paragraph 13 h of the Special Leave Petition, are number denied i the detailed ocunter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent in this Court.
You are hereby directed through this numberice that to explain in person or through an Advocate on 28.12.1992 at 10 A.M. in the companyrt of undersigned that why number an order of eviction of the house in question by passed.
P 4 show cause ntocie and the eviction proceedings.
P 4 and the eviction proceedngs.
The appellant by Annexure Ext.
The 4th respondent, the allottee of the quarter No.
6/92 were quashed.
Without showing cause against Annexure Ext.
P 4, straightaway approached the High companyrt by filing CEJC NO.
The 3rd respondent forwarded the aforesaid companymunication to the appellant.
82/93 and assailedl Annexure Ext.
6/92 pending before the 3rd respondent.
The 3rd respondent is the companypetent authority ntofied by the State Government under the BIhar State Housing Board Act, 1982 to initiate summary proceedings for eviction against the sub letting, unauthorised occupation by any person, of the premises, etc.
The appellant Board has allotted quarter No.
We heard companynsel.
Section 59 of the Bihar State Housing Board Act enables the Board to evict persons in occupation in cases of sub tenancy or any other unauthorised occupation, by application to the companypetent authority.
Section 59 of the Bihar State created by the Board.
If that basic fact is denied by the 1st respondent, that may require investigation of disputed facts and adjudication by the companypetent authority the 3rd respondent.
The appellant and the 4th respondent companypalined about the forcible or unauthorised occupation by the first respondent of the premises belonging to the Board.
P 2 that he has been allotted the said abuilding by the Board, and while he was residing with his fmaily in the siad building, the 1st respondent has forcibly and unauthorisedly occupies the first floor of the building.
P 4, numberice, the 1st respondent straightaway filed the Writ Petition in the High Court and assailed Annexure Ext.
If, as pleaded by te appellant and the 4th respondent, the Board is the owner and the 4th respodent is the hirer, it cannot admit of any doubt that the 3rd respondent has jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings as per Annexure Ext.
M 11 Old of Housing Board situated at Adityapur Housing Board.
P 3 dated 15.12.1992 informed the 3rd respondent, S.D.O. that house No.
The first respondent assailed the show cause numberice Annexure Ext.
In this back ground, the 3rd respondent issued Annexure Ext.
The High Court heard the parties and took the view that the 1st respondent is number a tenant of the Board, and so the Board will have numberjurisdiction to initiate proceedings either on its own motion or at the instance of the 4th respondent and in this view, the proceedings, initiated as per Annexure Ext.
M/11 Old Adityapur, Near Jamshedpur is stituate.
By numberification No.
P 4, numberice, is the one so issued by the 3rd respondent.
P 4 and also the eviction proceedings NO.
Annexure Ext.
According to him, 4th respondent is the owner of the building having purchased the same from the Board, that he is a tenant of the first floor under the 4th respondent, that the 3rd respondent is incompetent to initiate proceedings for eviction under the Bihar State Housing Board Act, and that only proceedings under the Bihar Buildings Lease, Rent Eviction Control Act will lie for eviction.
In the result, Anexure Ext.
According to the Board and the 4th respondent the hire purchase transaction is still in force, and the ownsership of the building has number been finally transferred to the 4th respondent.
M 11/ Old Adityapur, Near Jamshedpur, to the 4th respondent on hire purchase basis.
The broad facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal are in a narrow companypass.
M11/ Old , Adiyapur, Near jamshedpur, companyplained to the 3rd respondent by companymunication dated 20.10.1992 annexure Ext.
M/11 Old Adityapur, Near Jamshedpur, belongs to Board.
P 4, show cause numberice, and also the Eviction proceedings No.
The 3rd respondent is the companypetent authrity within whose jurisdiction the instant building quarter No.
belonging to the Board.
P 4, are unjustified and without jurisdiction.
The Board, party respondent in the writ petitio, has filed this appeal against the aforesaid judgment dated 10.2.1993.
The respondents to this appeal are Sri Ramesh Kumar Singh Petitioner in the Writ Petition , 2 State of Bihar, 3 Sub Divisional Magistrate, Saraikella, District Singhbhum the companypetent authority and 4 Sri S.N. Pandey, Adityapur, District Singhbhum east .
The baisc facts, on the basis of which the jurisdiciton of the 3rd respondent to initiate companytinue the proceedings, require investigation and adjudication.
MIG M/11 Old , Adityapur, Near Jamshedpur stands allotted to the 4th respondent and the application of the 4th respondent, which is self explantory, praying for eviction of the portion unauthorisedly occupied by the 1st respondent, is referred for necessary action.
82/93 High Court of Patna.
It is from the aforesaid judgment of the High Court dated 10.2.1993, the Board has companye up on appeal by special leave.
The 1st respondent would say that the 4th respondent is the owner having purchased the building from the Board.
So, he prayed for quashing Annexure Ext.
PARIPOORNAN, J. Leave granted.
The appellant is the Executive Engineer, Bihar State Hosuing Board and represents the said Board hereinafter referred to as Board .
Sd Sub Divisional Magistrate, Saraikella 16.12.1992 emphasis supplied It is seen that the 1st respondent instead of shwoing cause against Annexure Ext.
It may be, that this basic fact is denied by the 1st respondent when he states that the 4th respondent is the owner having purchased the building from the Board and that he is a tenant under the 4th respondent.
P 4 numberice dated 16.12.1992 to the 1st respondent which is to the follwing effect UNDER SECTION OF BIHAR HOUSING BOARD ACT SHOW CAUSE NOTICE To, Shri R.K. Singh, Contractor, M 11, Adityapur, JAMSHEDPUR.
P 4 dated 16.12.1992 issued to him by the 3rd respondent herein under Section 59 of the Bihar State Housing Board Act, 1982 in CWJC No.
