Randhir Kumar @ Randhir Kumar Yadav vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5320 of 2020
======================================================
Randhir Kumar @ Randhir Kumar Yadav S/o Sri Sahdeo Prasad Rai @
Sahdeo Prasad Yadav, Proprietor of M/S Rai National Medical Hall, R/o-
Purabsarai, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Munger.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Bailey
Road, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Home (Police) Department Bihar, Patna, Old Secretariat,
Bailey Road, Patna.
3. Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna, Old Secretariat, Bailey Road,
Patna.
4. Divisional Commissioner Munger Division, Munger Fort Area, P.S.-
Kotwali, District-Munger.
5. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Munger Range, Munger Fort Area, P.S.-
Kotwali, District-Munger.
6. District Magistrate, Munger Fort Area, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Munger.
7. Superintendent of Police, Munger Fort Area, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Munger.
8. Sub-Divisional Magistrate cum Sub Divisional Officer Sadar Munger Fort
Area, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Munger.
9. Harishankar Kumar, Additional Superintendent of Police, Munger Fort Area,
P.S.-Kotwali, District-Munger.
10. The Station House Officer cum Officer In-charge, Kotwali Police Station,
Munger.
11. Sri Mazhar Makbool, Officer In Charge Puranbsarai Town Out Post under
Kotwali Police Station, PO-Munger and PS-Kotwali, District-Munger.
12. Sandhya Devi, Wife of Late Bhuneshwar Mandal, Resident of Mohalla-
Purabsarai Brahmasthan, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Munger.
13. Jitendra Kumar, Son of Late Bhuneshwar Mandal, Resident of Mohalla-
Purabsarai Brahmasthan, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Munger.
14. Dharmendra Kumar @ Ajit, Son of Bhuneshwar Mandal, Resident of
Mohalla-Purabsarai Brahmasthan, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Munger.
15. Ankesh Kumar @ Nandu, Son of Late Bhuneshwar Mandal, Resident of
Mohalla-Purabsarai Brahmasthan, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Munger.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Gupta, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manish Kumar (GP-4)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-07-2026

Patna High Court CWJC No.5320 of 2020 dt.16-07-2026
2/8
Heard Mr. Dinesh Kumar Gupta who is appearing
through virtual mode as also Mr. Manish Kumar, learned G.P.-4.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
“for directing the Respondent
Authorities to unlock the Medical shop premises
of the petitioner which was locked by the private
respondents with the help and strength of Sri
Mazhar Makbool, Officer in charge Purabsarai
Town Out Post Kotwali police personnel within
the knowledge and connivance of Harishankar
Kumar, Additional Superintendent of Police,
Munger and The Station House Officer cum
Officer In-charge, Kotwali Police Station,
Munger and restore the possession of the
petitioner in rented premises and the detail of
which is mentioned in para-5 of writ application;
ii. to direct the respondent Sub
Divisional Officer cum S.D.M. Munger to initiate
the House Control case proceeding of 6M2/2020
filed under section of 10(2) Bihar Building
(Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act-1982
(herein referred in short the BBC Act) against the

Patna High Court CWJC No.5320 of 2020 dt.16-07-2026
3/8
private respondents to expedite and disposed of
the case on day to day basis seeing the urgency
of the petitioner's case which is closed due to
putting of lock by private respondents in to him
the shop premises debar to avail amenities in
rented premise.
iii. to direct the respondent police
authorities to provide safety to the petitioner at
the time of opening of shop by unlocking the lock
from the rented premise of the petitioner to
prevent breach of peace;
iv. or grant such other relief or relief's
as your lordship may deem fit & proper.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he was running a
medical shop with the name and style of M/s Rai National
Medical Hall, Purabsarai, Munger which is/was a rented
premises of late Munni Devi and the rent was realised by
Sandhya Devi and her sons (respondent nos. 12 to 15).
4. The details of the land is/are as follows:
Khesra no. 5695
Touzi no. 3307
Mouza-Bagh Daman Madhopur Maroof
Mohalla, Purabsarai, Munger.

Patna High Court CWJC No.5320 of 2020 dt.16-07-2026
4/8
5. The submission is that on 06.11.2019, the
respondent nos. 12 to 15 forcibly put a lock in the shop. The
petitioner went to the Kotwali Police Station, Munger,
whereafter, on the police report, a proceeding under Section 107
Cr.P.C. was initiated vide Case no. 1263M/2019 by the S.D.M,
Sadar, Munger. It was later dropped on 28.12.2020.
6. It has been submitted that another proceeding
bearing case no. 6M2 of 2020 was initiated which was also
dropped on the same day, i.e. on 28.12.2020 after recording that
it relates to vacating the rented house for which the parties have
to move before the competent Civil Court.
7. The submission is that putting a lock in no way
relates to eviction of tenanted house rather his access to the shop
was denied. However, instead of taking cognizance of the said
illegality and order accordingly, he was advised to go to the
competent Civil Court. The petitioner is suffering since last six
years due to the lock hanging on his shop and his
ingress/outgress has been prohibited.
8. Learned State counsel on the other hand submits
that section 107 of the Cr.P.C. proceeding was initiated but later
dropped. The second proceeding (6M2 of 2020) was also
dropped as this relates to a eviction which can be adjudicated by
a Civil Court.

Patna High Court CWJC No.5320 of 2020 dt.16-07-2026
5/8
9. Having heard the parties, this Court took a look at
the Section 10 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction)
Control Act, 1982 (henceforth for short ‘the 1982 Act’) which
records the amenities to be enjoyed by the tenant without any
interference by the landlord and read as follows:
(1) No landlord shall, without just or
sufficient cause cut off or withhold any of the
amenities enjoyed by the tenant.
(2) A tenant in possession of a building
may, if the landlord has contravened the
provisions of sub-section (1) make an application
to the Controller complaining of such
contravention and may restore any of the
amenities on his own responsibility, pending
consideration of his application by the
Controller.
(3) If the Controller on enquiry is
satisfied that the landlord has without just or
sufficient cause cut off or withheld any of the
amenities enjoyed by the tenant at the time of the
commencement of the tenancy or at any time
there after, he shall-
(i) in case such amenity has

Patna High Court CWJC No.5320 of 2020 dt.16-07-2026
6/8
already been restored by the tenant make an
order directing the landlord to pay to the
tenant the cost of such restoration as
determined by him within such time as may
be specified in the order; and
(ii) in any other case, direct the
landlord to restore such amenity at such
cost and within such time as may be
determined by him and also that in case the
landlord fails to do so, the amenity may be
restored by the tenant at his own cost and
such amount as may be specified in the
order may be recovered by the tenant as the
cost of the restoration either by adjustment
towards the rent payable by him or as if the
amount were a debt due to him by the
landlord.
10. Further, Section 11 of ‘the 1982 Act’ deals with
the eviction of tenants and records that where a tenant is in
possession of any building, he shall not be liable to eviction,
therefore, except in execution of a decree passed by this Court.
11. However, here is a case, where the landlord instead
of resorting to eviction suit, put a lock on the shop. The

Patna High Court CWJC No.5320 of 2020 dt.16-07-2026
7/8
petitioner complained against the landlord of having locked his
shop illegally. A Misc. Case no. 1263M of 2019 was initiated by
the S.D.M, Sadar, Munger which was dropped. Another case
6M2 of 2020 was also dropped by the same office on 28.12.2020
holding that it relates to eviction of shop for which the parties
have to move before the competent Civil Court.
12. While doing so, he completely shrugged off his
responsibility and thus allowed an illegality to perpetuate. This
Court reiterate that unless the competent Civil Court decides the
case against a tenant in an eviction suit filed by the landlord,
he/she has the right to free access in his/her tenanted shop which
cannot be prohibited.
13. Putting locks or changing the locks or forcibly
dispossessing the tenant is an illegal act and amounts to an
unlawful eviction. The eviction of a tenant must follow due
process and certainly, locking of the premises is an illegal act.
14. The matter is of the year 2020, a medical shop has
been locked since the year 2019, the medicines inside the shop
stand expired/wasted only because the House Controller/S.D.M,
Sadar, Munger failed to act in accordance with law.
15. The time has come for the respondents to act in the
matter. Instead of summoning the then Sub-Divisional Officer,
Sadar, Munger to explain why he chose to look the other way

Patna High Court CWJC No.5320 of 2020 dt.16-07-2026
8/8
who in any case, must not be now posted in the district of
Munger, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate
that the petitioner prefers a fresh petition before the House
Controller (respondent no.8) with a proper petition for the
opening of the locks of the medical shop.
16. If such a petition is preferred in the next four
weeks, it has to be taken to its logical conclusion in accordance
with law after noticing all the necessary parties including the
respondent nos. 12 to 15 herein. The entire exercise has to be
completed within a period of three months from the date, the
copy of the petition along with the present order is handed over
to the said office.
17. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid
observation. No cost.

(Rajiv Roy, J)
munindra/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 21.07.2026
Transmission Date