IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 15974 of 2009 1. GOPAL SHARMA S/O LATE BHAGWAN DUTT SINGH @ BHAGWAN DUTT SHARMA R/O VILL AND POST OFFICE- MEHANDIA, P.S- MEHANDIA, DISTT- ARWAL 2. JITENDRA PRASAD SINGH, S/O LATE BHAGWAN DUTT SINGH @ BHAGWAN DUTT SHARMA R/O VILL AND POST OFFICE- MEHANDIA, P.S- MEHANDIA, DISTT- ARWAL 3. SURENDRA KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE BHAGWAN DUTT SINGH @ BHAGWAN DUTT SHARMA R/O VILL AND POST OFFICE- MEHANDIA, P.S- MEHANDIA, DISTT- ARWAL 4. YOGENDRA KR. SINGH S/O LATE BHAGWAN DUTT SINGH @ BHAGWAN DUTT SHARMA R/O VILL AND POST OFFICE- MEHANDIA, P.S- MEHANDIA, DISTT- ARWAL Versus 1. THE BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. (B.S.N.L.) THROUGH GENERAL MANAGE, TELECOM DISTT- GAYA 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER (BSNL) TELECOM, DISTT- GAYA 3. THE SDEP (G) TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, ARWAL ----------- 3 25.03.2010 The four petitioners are the sons of late Bhagwan Dutt Singh @ Bhagwan Dutt Sharma. Their father, in his lifetime, had given to the Post and Telegraph Department a building for setting up of Telephone Exchange at Arwal for a period of one year. Department continued. They continued even after their own Exchange Building was made but now they used the premises to dump their old equipments etc. In the meantime, father of the petitioners died. Petitioners kept requesting the authorities to vacate the premises. Though the Exchange appears to have shifted to the new premises on or about 31.08.2005, this premises was not handed over. When the General Manager of now Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) was approached, he also wrote to the authorities to see that the premises is vacated immediately and possession handed over. The letters also indicate that immediately on vacating the premises by BSNL, payment would be made to the house owner up to 31.08.2005. It may be noted that these letters 2 are of the year, 2007-2008. Ultimately on 17.02.2008, BSNL vacated the premises and handed over possession to the petitioners. It would, thus, be seen that right from 2001, after the lease expired, BSNL continued to occupy the premises upto 17.02.2008 but as they were not paying the rent, the writ petition was filed against this arbitrary action. Good sense prevailed. During pendency of the writ petition, BSNL agreed to pay rent upto 17.02.2008. Learned counsel for BSNL states that cheque for paying rent from 2001 to 17.02.2008 at the rate specified in the lease being Rs 1,200/- per month has been prepared in the name of the mother of the petitioners being the widow of late Bhagwan Dutt Singh @ Bhagwan Dutt Sharma but petitioners are not accepting the same. Shri Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioners has true objections. Firstly, Rs 1,200/- per month was rent fixed under the lease for a short period of occupation. Thereafter, from 2001 to 2008, BSNL was in an unauthorised occupation and tenants by sufferers. The rent of Rs 1,200/- per month is, thus, much less than what is expected. His second grievance is that as evident from their own communications as appended in the writ petition and not denied by BSNL, it was BSNL who was wrongfully occupying the premises beyond the lease period. The General Manager of BSNL had to step in who virtually forced the subordinate officers to vacate the premises. It was, thus, wrong to suggest that the petitioners were not permitting the BSNL to vacate. 3 The other grievance is that petitioners were not informed about the payment at any point of time. Had they been told about the payment, they would immediately inform the authorities that the cheque in the name of petitioners’ mother was of no use because mother has also died on 01.01.2009 long before filing of this writ petition. Petitioners agree that the cheque may be made in the name of petitioner No 1 Gopal Sharma who is the eldest brother and is now acting as the karta of the family. Having considered the matter, in my view, there is no dispute that BSNL overstayed beyond the period agreed. What should be the rent would be a question that can only be determined either by the Rent Controller or in a civil proceedings in a Court of competent jurisdiction. This Court in this jurisdiction is inapt to decide this issue. Petitioners are given liberty to move appropriate forum/Court for realisation of enhanced rent and/or damages as the case may be. So far as the second issue is concerned, in my view, petitioners are correct in submitting that petitioners were always anxious to see that BSNL vacates the premises. The communications, as appended to the writ petition and not denied by the BSNL, fairly indicate that they have moved the higher authorities for direction to the lower authorities and it is on intervention of the General Manager, ultimately the premises could be vacated. Thus, stand of the BSNL is not correct that petitioners were not letting BSNL to vacate the premises. 4 Coming to the third issue, there is no dispute that BSNL is obliged to pay the landlord of the premises which they were occupying. The landlord was the father of the petitioners. Father and mother having died and that being an ancestral property, there can be no objection if petitioners, as indicated above, agree that payment may be made in the name of Gopal Sharma who is the eldest brother and now the karta of the family. Let BSNL do accordingly within a fortnight from today. Petitioners would receive this payment without prejudice to their rights in relation to the first issue, as noted above. On petitioners/petitioners’ representative being sent, respondents would ensure that the account payee cheque in question would be handed over to the petitioners/petitioners’ representative not later than 15 days from today. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)