Facts
The petitioner, proprietor of M/s Rai National Medical Hall, operated a medical shop in a rented premises in Munger
Source reference: p. 3On November 6, 2019, the private respondents (landlords) allegedly forcibly locked the shop premises
Source reference: p. 4Subsequent 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
Source reference: p. 4The 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
Source reference: p. 4The petitioner sought a writ directing the authorities to unlock the premises and restore possession
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether a landlord can legally lock a tenanted premises to effectuate eviction without a court decree
Source reference: p. 6, para 112. 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
Source reference: p. 7, para 14Law 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
Source reference: p. 5Section 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
Source reference: p. 6the principle that forcible dispossession or locking premises constitutes "unlawful eviction" and a violation of due process
Source reference: p. 7Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the S.D.M./House Controller "completely shrugged off his responsibility" by labeling the dispute as a civil matter
Source reference: p. 7The Court emphasized that until a Civil Court passes an eviction decree, a tenant maintains a legal right to free access to the premises
Source reference: p. 7Locking the premises or changing locks is an illegal act that bypasses the due process of law provided under the 1982 Act
Source reference: p. 7The 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
Source reference: p. 7Holding
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
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
Source reference: p. 8The 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
Source reference: p. 8Original Court PDF
Randhir Kumar @ Randhir Kumar YadavvsThe State of Bihar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in