CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.8525 OF 1993 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ------- BISHRAM TIWARI S/O KAPILDEO TOWARO R/O MOHALLA SHRIKRISHNAPUR, 153-F, PS. SRIKRISHNAPURI, TOWN & DISTT – PATNA---PETITIONER Versus 1. THE PATNA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THROUGH ITS SECRETRY, P.R.D.A, SITUATED AT MOHALLA DAK BUNGLOW ROAD PS. –KOTWALI TOWN & DISTT. PATNA 2. THE VICE CHAIRMAN THE PATNA REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (PRDA) ,PATNA---------------------- RESPONDENTS ----------- For The Petitioner :MR. SIYA RAM SHAHI, Advocate For The Respondents: Mr. VINAY KIRTI SINGH, Advocate --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ***** A.K.Tripathi,J By order dated 23.10.1992 contained in annexure- 1 the then Vice Chairman of erstwhile Bihar Patna Regional Development Authority in exercise of power under section 85(4) of the Bihar Regional Development Act (hereinafter referred to as to Act) has ordered eviction of the petitioner from Flat No. 33A in Block No. 3 located in Mohalla- Rajendra Nager colony, Patna. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was inducted as a lessee in terms of an agreement entered between the then Patna Improvement Trust and certain terms and conditions have been laid down in the lease agreement. Petitioner could be evicted only in breach of the agreement contained in annexure-2 and not for any other reason. The Vice Chairman has evicted the petitioner on the ground that since he was already in possession of another plot of land allotted to him by the Regional Development Authority - 2 - and keeping in mind the principle one person one property, the eviction against him has been effected. Whatever the reasoning or motivation behind the said order but the eviction under provision of the section 85(4) of the Act can only be effected if it is held that the property is in illegal occupation. In the present case it cannot be said that the petitioner is in illegal possession of the property in question because he was inducted as a tenant. Thereafter if he has committed any breach of the agreement then the reasoning given by the concerned authority must reflect that breach. In the order the breach of condition do not emerge to be the primary consideration in effecting eviction of the petitioner and therefore the order is not in consonance with section 85(4) of the Act. Annexure-1 therefore stands quashed. This writ application is allowed. But it is open to successor in interest of Patna Regional Development Authority (now Patna Municipal Corporation) to do the needful in accordance with law if they are still interested in asserting their right as a landlord. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 4th December, 2008 NAFR (RPS)