IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1624 of 2005 RAM NANDAN SAH SON OF LATE RAM RUP SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- GADESARA, P.S. RAMGARH, DISTRICT- KAIMUR AT PRESENT RESIDING AT VILLAGE- NUAON, P.S.- NUAON, DISTRICT- KAIMUR --- PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, KAIMUR. 3. THE S.D.O. MOHANIA (KAIMUR) 4. THE B.D.O. RAMGARH, DISTT. KAIMUR. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KAIMUR. 6. THE OFFICER INCHARGE, P.S. NUAON, DISTT. KAIMUR. 7. KIRAN DEVI @ KRISHNA DEVI WIFE OF SRI DHARAMCHAND JAISWAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- AKHOURI, P.S.- NUAON, DISTRICT- KAIMUR – RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2/ 11-05-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.C. to G.P. 8, appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 6. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction for restoration of his possession as a tenant over a shop belonging to respondent no.7, situate at Mohania in the district of Kaimur (Bhabhua). The petitioner claims that during the pendency of Case No. 4 of 2003 filed by the petitioner before respondent- S.D.O.- cum-House Controller for fixation of fair rent of the shop in question, he has been ousted from the shop and articles kept in the shop were thrown away from there. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2, 3 and 6 disputing the entire averments made on behalf of the petitioner in the main writ petition. 2 Order dated 07.12.2003 passed by respondent S.D.O.- cum- House Controller in Case No. 4 of 2003, has also been brought on record as Annexure-C to the aforesaid counter-affidavit. From perusal of the aforesaid order, it appears that House Controller came to a finding of fact that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between respondent no.7 and the petitioner. Entire claim of tenancy of the petitioner has been disbelieved. The prayer for fixation of fair rent has also been rejected by the aforesaid order dated 07.12.2003. After hearing the parties, this Court finds that in absence of relationship of landlord and the tenant between respondent no.7 and the petitioner, as per the finding recorded by the House Controller, entire claim made by the petitioner becomes very much doubtful. Writ petition seems to be completely misconceived. It is, accordingly, dismissed. BTiwary/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)