Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

R.R. Prasad, J.—Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that an office of the State Electricity Regulatory Commission is being run in Rajendra Jawan Bhawan-cum-Sainik Bazar which building never belongs to the State Government and as such, it will not come within the definition of the ''Government Premises'' as defined in Section 2(C) of the Bihar Government Premises (Rent, Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1956, still a proceeding for eviction has been initiated against the Petitioner by the Respondent No. 3 before the Respondent No. 2, but that was not maintainable for two reasons; (i) the building, in which the Petitioner is a tenant, is never the Government premises; and (ii) the Government of Jharkhand has never adopted the Bihar Government Premises (Rent, Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1956 u/s 85 of the Bihar Reorganization Act and as such, any proceeding of eviction would not be maintainable.

Learned Counsel further submits that when a notice of eviction was received by the Petitioner, an objection was taken by him before the S.D.M., Ranchi, a Competent Authority, under the Bihar Government Premises (Rent, Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1956 but that objection was not decided and, therefore, the Petitioner moved to this Court vide W.P. (C) No. 2796 of 2011 which was disposed of directing the Respondent No. 2 to decide the matter, which had been raised by the Petitioner. The matter has been decided by the Respondent No. 2, wherein he held that by virtue of a Notification bearing No. 2754 dated 14.11.2002, Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act has been adopted by the State of Jharkhand but the matter never pertains to that Act, rather it pertains to Bihar Government Premises (Rent, Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1956. Under this situation, the Petitioner is not liable to be evicted under the Bihar Government Premises (Rent, Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1956 and at the same time, Respondent No. 2 has got no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter relating to eviction of the Petitioner from the premises which is not a Government premises.

However, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 seeks two weeks'' time to file counter affidavit.

At the same time, let counter affidavit be filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Let this case be listed under the same heading on 14.11.2011.

Till then, further proceedings of Case No. BGP 01 of 2010 pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ranchi shall remain stayed.