Landlord cannot forcibly lock tenanted premises; eviction must follow due process via a competent Civil Court.

In brief

The question

1. Whether a landlord can legally lock a tenanted premises to effectuate eviction without a court decree

The court held

The Court held that the locking of the premises by the landlord was an illegal act and that the S.D.M. failed to exercise his jurisdiction

It also directed

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh petition before the House Controller (Respondent No. 8) within four weeks

The House Controller is directed to notice all necessary parties and conclude the proceedings regarding the unlocking of the shop within three months of receiving the petition

01Facts

The petitioner, proprietor of M/s Rai National Medical Hall, operated a medical shop in a rented premises in Munger

p. 3

On November 6, 2019, the private respondents (landlords) allegedly forcibly locked the shop premises

p. 4

Subsequent legal proceedings initiated by the petitioner under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. and Case No. 6M2/2020 (under the Bihar Building Control Act) were dropped by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (S.D.M.) on December 28, 2020

p. 4

The S.D.M. held that the matter related to eviction and advised the parties to move a competent Civil Court, thereby leaving the shop locked for over six years

p. 4

The petitioner sought a writ directing the authorities to unlock the premises and restore possession

p. 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether a landlord can legally lock a tenanted premises to effectuate eviction without a court decree

p. 6, para 11

ii.2. Whether the House Controller/S.D.M. failed in their statutory duty by dropping the proceedings on the grounds that the matter was a civil dispute

p. 7, para 14

03Law Applied

Section 10 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, which prohibits a landlord from withholding amenities enjoyed by a tenant without sufficient cause and empowers the Controller to restore such amenities

p. 5

Section 11 of the 1982 Act, which mandates that a tenant in possession cannot be evicted except in execution of a decree passed by a competent court

p. 6

the principle that forcible dispossession or locking premises constitutes "unlawful eviction" and a violation of due process

p. 7

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 107

04Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the S.D.M./House Controller "completely shrugged off his responsibility" by labeling the dispute as a civil matter

p. 7

The Court emphasized that until a Civil Court passes an eviction decree, a tenant maintains a legal right to free access to the premises

p. 7

Locking the premises or changing locks is an illegal act that bypasses the due process of law provided under the 1982 Act

p. 7

The Court noted with concern that the medical shop remained locked since 2019, causing medicines to expire because the House Controller failed to act according to the statutory mandate of the 1982 Act

p. 7

05Holding

The Court held that the locking of the premises by the landlord was an illegal act and that the S.D.M. failed to exercise his jurisdiction

p. 7

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh petition before the House Controller (Respondent No. 8) within four weeks

p. 8

The House Controller is directed to notice all necessary parties and conclude the proceedings regarding the unlocking of the shop within three months of receiving the petition

p. 8

LawLens.Patna High Court

Original Court PDF