AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Poonam Srivastav, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the Respondents.
Grievance of the Petitioner is that he was allotted a shop in the area - Adityapur, Plot No.8, area 10'' x 20'' from where the Petitioner has been carrying on betel shop. The allotment order is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Perusal of the said order shows that it was given on rent and the allotment was temporary. An agreement was also entered into between the Petitioner and the Housing Board. Clause 10(b) of the said agreement provides that tenancy agreement was operative for a period of 11 months and in the event the period of tenancy is extended, a fresh agreement will be executed between the parties. It is admitted that no fresh agreement was entered.
Submission on behalf of the Petitioner is that Housing Board has accepted rent upto April, 2011 and, therefore, their action is denotive of the fact that the agreement was extended and their eviction by means of letter No.951 dated 6th May, 2011 to remove the shop within 15 days, failing which the allotment will be cancelled and the shop will be removed treating it to be an encroachment is liable to be interfered.
Submission of the learned Counsel is that Section 59 Sub Clause (b) of the Bihar Housing Board Act, 1982 provides a procedure whereby a notice under Sub-section (1) stating the ground for eviction has to be followed and since the rent was accepted, the Housing Board is duty bound to execute a fresh agreement for tenancy and the Petitioner is liable to continue and conduct his betel shop from the said place.
After hearing the parties, it is evident that there is regular allotment procedure adopted by the Housing Board at the time of allotment but in the instant case, it was only a temporary agreement for tenancy of 11 months which has come to an end. The Housing Board does not desire to extend the tenancy on account of the reason that the area in which Betel shop is being carried out has already been allotted to a third party for which writ petition is pending before the High court and the area in which the shop is running, is not available for allotment by the Housing Board, therefore, the request for extension of the agreement cannot be considered.
The Housing Board appears to be justified in its contention and the procedure of 15 days notice has already been followed. There is no illegality and thus, the writ petition lacks merit.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.