Parallel writ proceedings cannot continue when civil suits over the same tenancy dispute remain pending.

The petitioner had occupied a 2,644 sq. ft. shop on the ground floor of Udyog Bhawan, popularly known as Apna Bazar, under successive rent agreements with the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (“BIADA”) since 2008.

The last renewal extended the tenancy from 4 October 2021 to 3 October 2024.

BIADA subsequently issued a notice dated 27 May 2022 requiring the petitioner to vacate within three months under Clause 5 of the rent agreement, which permitted termination by either party upon three months’ written notice.

The petitioner instituted Title Suit Nos. 302 of 2022 and 398 of 2022 and sought interim protection against dispossession; the injunction application was rejected on 2 March 2023.

BIADA thereafter issued notice dated 13 March 2023 requiring removal of the alleged encroachment by 27 March 2023.

The petitioner challenged the notice under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (“Encroachment Act”) did not apply to a landlord–tenant dispute and that BIADA officials lacked jurisdiction to initiate encroachment proceedings.

The petitioner’s challenge to the rejection of interim relief was also pending before the competent civil court in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 09 of 2023.

1. Whether BIADA could treat the petitioner’s occupation of the tenanted premises as an encroachment and initiate proceedings under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956.

2. Whether the BIADA officials who issued the impugned notice possessed jurisdiction under the Encroachment Act.

3. Whether the petitioner could pursue the writ petition while the title suits and proceedings concerning interim relief remained pending before the competent civil court.

4. Whether the petitioner should be granted time to obtain appropriate relief from the civil court or vacate the premises.

The Court considered the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, under which proceedings for removal of encroachment must be undertaken by the competent statutory authority and in accordance with due process.

It also considered the contractual termination provision in Clause 5 of the rent agreement, permitting either party to terminate the tenancy by giving three months’ prior written notice.

The Court relied upon Ashwani Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., C.W.J.C. No. 8441 of 2022, which held that a landlord–tenant relationship cannot be terminated by forcible dispossession and that eviction must ordinarily follow due process of law, including an eviction decree or proceedings before the competent authority.

The Court further applied the procedural principle that parallel proceedings should not be pursued where the same dispute is already pending before a competent civil court.

The Court did not finally adjudicate the petitioner’s substantive challenges concerning the applicability of the Encroachment Act or the jurisdiction of BIADA’s officers.

It noted that Clause 5 authorised termination of the tenancy by three months’ notice, while the petitioner had already invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court through title suits and an appeal concerning interim protection.

Since those proceedings remained pending, the Court held that parallel adjudication of the same dispute in the writ petition could not be permitted.

However, considering the parties’ long-standing landlord–tenant relationship since 2008, the petitioner’s request for time, and BIADA’s submission that the contractual notice period was three months, the Court granted a final period of 90 days to obtain appropriate relief from the competent civil court.

The Court also noted that BIADA proposed renovation of the entire building and had not singled out the petitioner for eviction.

The petitioner was granted 90 days from 20 August 2026 to obtain appropriate relief in the pending suit or Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 09 of 2023.

If no relief was obtained within that period, the petitioner was directed to vacate the premises immediately.

The Court clarified that the pendency of the writ petition would not prevent an amicable settlement and observed that, if the petitioner later participated in BIADA’s fresh letting process after renovation and satisfied the applicable criteria, he should receive appropriate weightage.

All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.