IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.403 of 2007 SHAHID HADI Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 9 26.2.2009 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner claims to be tenant of Oriental Studio measuring an area of 15’ x 25’ situated opposite to Patna University at Ashok Raj Path. He states that the shop Katra originally belongs to one Jawahar Lal from whom the petitioner’s predecessor took tenancy in the year, 1960. Since then rent is being regularly paid to the owner. It is submitted that after exchange of land one Soni Mian, respondent no.5 became the owner of the shop Katra in 2004. He submits that the aforesaid Soni Mian has realized rent @ Rs.800/- up to November,2006. Photostat copy of the rent receipts have been annexed as Annexures 1 to 1/c. The petitioner even got his business registered under the Excise Act. The petitioner alleges that on 1.1.2007 at 9 P.M. respondents no.5 to 7 came at his residence and threatened him to vacate the said shop. However, when he came to his shop on 2.1.2007 at 9.30 A.M. he saw the lock of the shop broken. Further more in presence of respondent no.4 and his constables, goods of the shop were whisked away on Gipsy on point of pistol. The petitioner soon thereafter lodged a case being Pirbahore P.S. Case No.2/07, under sections 341,323,325,504,379,/34 of I.P.C., though the case according to him was covered under section 387 and 392 of I.P.C. The petitioner submits that Pirbahore Police being biased - 2 - submitted final report in favour of the accused persons. It is submitted that police did not investigate the case properly. The petitioner submits that he has been thrown out of his shop premises without any process of law as such he seeks restoration of his possession. In support of his contention he has relied upon a decision in case of Manju Devi vrs. State of Bihar and others reported in 1999 (2) PLJR 641. In the aforesaid case this Court observed that a tenant cannot be forcibly evicted without due course of law. The Court disbelieved the case of the respondents and directed the authorities to put him back in the premises in question. Learned counsel for the private respondents state that one Md. Adil who is cousin of the petitioner was in fact the tenant and the petitioner was his employee. He submits that on request of the landlord Md.Adil vacated the shop and handed over the key of the shop to Sayeed Ahmad @ Soni Mian. Learned counsel for the private respondents has relied upon Annexure-A filed with their counter affidavit which is a supervision note of Dy.S.P. Town, Patna. In his supervision note he has stated that many persons have stated that petitioner has his Oriental Studio in the premises of the Sayeed Ahmed @ Soni Mian, which was being managed by his cousin ( Fufera bhai), Md.Adil. The State counsel submits that the police after investigation has submitted final report in the case in favour of the accused persons. After perusing the records and the materials on record it - 3 - appears that the rent of the premises in question was being paid by the petitioner to the owner since a long time. There is nothing on the record to show that the rent of the premises was being paid by Adil Mian to the landlord. It would also appear from the supervision note relied upon by the private respondents that the shop in question was lent to the petitioner since 1960 which was being managed by Md.Adil Mian. On the basis of materials on record it prima facie appears that the petitioner was running an Oriental Studio in the premises in question . As such the ratio decided in the case of Manju Devi vrs. the State of Bihar and ors. reported in 1999 (2) PLJR 641 would duly apply. In this view of the matter if the petitioner files an application before the S.D.O., Patna he will issue necessary direction for putting him back in possession of the shop in question. It is submitted by respondent no.5 that the shop of the building has been razed to the ground and a new complex is constructing in its place. The S.D.O., Patna will verify the aforesaid fact and if the submission of respondent no.5 is correct, then the latter would give an equivalent space on Ist or second storey. With the aforesaid direction this writ application is disposed of. Anilkr.sinha (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)