IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.757 of 2005 Vikash Saran Lal & Ors Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- For the appellants : Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate For the P.M.C : Mr. Sanjay Prakash Verma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Piyush Lal, Advocate For the private respondent nos.4 & 5 : Mr. Anil Jaiswal, Advocate. ------------- 17. 02.08.2011 The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 18.7.2005 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9957 of 2002. The writ petition is filed by the respondent herein claiming her husband to be the tenant of the disputed property and she was running a tea shop in the multi storied building. The facts of the case is that there are a lot of litigations amongst the parties as the landlord demolished the original premises and constructed a multi storied complex known as ‘ Hemplaza’. The case of the landlord i.e. the appellant herein was that the constructed tea stall in question was not in the sanctioned plan and Patna Municipal Corporation has demolished the construction. However, the respondent lady, who has been substituted on the death of the original tenant i.e. her husband, is still running the shop in the area i.e. in the front set back. The case of the respondent-landlord before the learned Single Judge was that the shop was to be demolished by the Patna Municipal Corporation because it was not according to the sanctioned plan. Learned Single Judge heard the matter and relied upon annexure-1 to the writ petition, which indicates that the respondent made a self-statement claiming to be tenant of the appellant herein and learned Single Judge having heard 2 the parties has come to the conclusion that the respondent-petitioner is admittedly a tenant of a portion of the property let out to him in 1960s and the landlord was burdened with an amount of Rs. 5 lacs to be paid to the respondent-petitioner within a period of one month from the date of the order. It is further observed by the learned Single Judge that the respondent-petitioner is permitted to make construction without any sanction from any authority but under the supervision of the officer of PRDA. It is also observed by the learned Single Judge that the landlord gave a false undertaking to the PRDA that he would remove the old structure but however he did not take any steps for removal of the said structure in accordance with law nor did he file a suit for eviction of the respondent-petitioner nor did he take any other steps for removal of the respondent petitioner from the shop in question. It is also observed that contrary to his undertaking the landlord started making construction of the new project without removing the structure where the respondent-petitioner was accommodated by him and findings of the learned Single Judge indicates that it was an illegal construction. It is also further observed that the landlord cannot remove a tenant from his tenancy or the structure where the tenancy was accommodated and allowed the writ petition. It is also further directed by the learned Single Judge that the entire new structure constructed by the landlord is on the basis of the plan dated 26.9.1994 as the said construction was contrary to the sanctioned plan and the landlord was directed to permit the respondent-petitioner to reconstruct the portion where she was having her tenancy and her shop and the landlord was directed to pay 3 compensation of Rs. 5 lacs to the respondent-petitioner. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that it is not a case of unauthorized construction as the entire construction of the new building is done as per the sanctioned plan. The dispute arose with regard to the running of the tea-shop and learned single Judge inadvertently gave a direction to the landlord for payment of compensation of Rs.5 lacs to the respondent-petitioner but in absence of any documentary evidence to show that she was a tenant of the landlord, there is no basis for the claim of compensation of Rs.5 lacs even though there is claim of the respondent-petitioner the she is a tenant since 1960. Secondly, learned counsel for the respondents relied on Annxure-1 filed along with the writ petition to support his statement that respondent-petitioner was tenant of the landlord but, however, on perusal of the Annexure-1 would go to show that it is a self made statement that the respondent-petitioner was the tenant even though there is signature of the landlord which could be found from Annexure-1 but there is no supporting documentary evidence available to support such statement that respondent-petitioner was tenant of the disputed premises. In the absence of any documentary evidence available that respondent-petitioner was the tenant of the appellant herein to frame tenancy in the disputed structure and the landlord has violated the bye-laws of the PRDA by raising the new construction, we are of the opinion that there is no basis that the learned single Judge has come to the conclusion that the landlord be burdened with an amount of Rs.5 lacs to be paid as compensation to the tenant and direction of the 4 learned single Judge directing the tenant to construct Tea Shop without any permission of the authority cannot be sustained. With regard to the direction to the PRDA to demolish the new construction of the appellant herein and in the absence of the materials available that the appellant has violated any bye-laws of the PRDA and the construction was made in violation of the sanctioned plan, we are of the opinion that such direction cannot be sustained and accordingly the order of the learned single Judge is set aside and the Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in pursuance of the direction of the learned single Judge an amount of Rs.2 lacs has been deposited by way of Demand Draft dated 1.8. 2005 drawn in favour of the Registrar General of the Patna High Court. Accordingly, a direction is issued to the Registrar General to return the amount of the Demand Draft by following the procedure in favour of the appellant. With the aforesaid observation/direction this Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of. Sudip ( T. Meena Kumari, J.) ( Vikash Jain, J.)