IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14401 of 2009 1. CHHOTAN HASMI S/O LATE KALAM HASMI VILL. PS & P.O- KOCHAS, DISTT- ROHTAS(SASARAM) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ROHTAS AT SASARAM 2. DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER- CUM- CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILA PARISHAD ROHTAS, SASARAM 3. SHALIM HASMI S/O LATE KALAM HASMI VILL.P.O&P.S- KOCHAS, DISTT- ROHTAS(SASARAM) ----------- 6. 14.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the Zila Parishad and for respondent nos. 3(a) to 3(h). Respondent nos. 3(a) to 3(h) are stated to be the descendents of the original now deceased respondent no. 3, who in turn was the own brother of the petitioner. The controversy relates to the orders of the Zila Parishad dated 30.6.2009 bifurcating the tenancy of the petitioner for shop No. 6 on Khata No. 755, Plot No. 1884 total area 15” x 12” originally settled with the petitioner alone. It appears that the original lease was for a period of 10 years commencing from 13.1.1983. It is not in controversy that the lease does not stand renewed till date by execution of any formal document though the petitioner claims payment of rent up to 2009. 2 Counsel for the private respondents submits that they have been paying rent to the Zila Parishad for the area in their occupation. The question of law for consideration by the Court is that if a registered tenancy had been created between the petitioner and the Zila Parishad, and the tenancy has not been renewed by a registered document, but the tenant continues in physical occupation, he acquires the status of a month to month tenant. Any ouster of the tenant, whether from the entire premises or a part of the premises by the Zila Parishad or any other person claiming under it can only be in accordance with law. The original tenancy agreement was between the petitioner and the Zila Parishad. The private respondents claim possession of a part of the premises based on family arrangement. In pursuance thereof the Zila Parishad purports to make a direct settlement with the private respondents while the original settlement with the petitioner continues and he disputes the claim of the respondents. If the relationship between the petitioner and the Zila Parishad was contractual and 3 continues, any novation of that contract can only be by consent of the parties. The Zila Parishad cannot unilaterally alter that contract to the prejudice of the petitioner by terminating his tenancy and dispossessing him contrary to law from part of the tenanted premises. Counsel for the Zila Parishad submits from the impugned order dated 30.6.2009 that the petitioner on 4.9.2008 had agreed in writing for bifurcation of the tenancy. The petitioner has denied the same. The Zila Parishad has not considered it necessary to bring on record the letter dated 4.9.2008. It therefore remains in the realm of speculation. The petitioner has already filed Title Suit No. 25 of 2006 against the private respondents for seeking possession. If the petitioner is not in possession of any area of the tenanted premises and it is occupied by the private respondents, quite naturally the petitioner can only regain possession through a process of law under orders of a competent Court only. The Court therefore holds that there could be no bifurcation of the tenancy unilaterally by the Zila Parishad. 4 The Court makes no observations with regard to the tenancy relationship between the petitioner and the Zila Parishad, their respective rights and obligations which are matters to be more appropriately considered by the Zila Parishad in accordance with law. The impugned order dated 30.6.2009 is therefore held to be not sustainable in its present form. It is accordingly set aside. The application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)