- (1.) THE petitioner is allowed to make correction in the array of the respondents as after filing of the writ petition, the Jharkhand State Transport Department has stepped into the shoes of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation as its successor. Heard counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 29th June 2007 passed by the Divisional Manager, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Bihar, Patna contained at annexure -4 asking him to deposit the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 11,21,491.88 failing which he shall be evicted from the stall no. 4 of the bus depot near Overbridge at Ranchi. Counsel for the petitioner, on the one hand, has relied upon the minutes of the decision contained at annexure -2 to suggest that the petitioner had been allowed to continue on the basis of the decision taken therein at a agreed rate of rent and was not an illegal tenant. However, on the other hand, from perusal of the statements made in paragraph -10 of the writ petition, it would appear that there are certain outstanding dues which has been admitted on the part of the petitioner as well. The petitioner's grievance is that he has been slapped with a huge amount of arrears of Rs. 11.00 lakh and odd which is wholly unreasonable and arbitrary.
(3.) GIVING reply to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, counsel for the respondent State submits that the petitioner has been evicted from the said stall on 17th October 2011. Counsel for the petitioner however submits that the shop has been sealed way back in the year 2007 itself and the petitioner had even thereafter deposited the agreed rents till 2011 in respect of which certain receipts has also been annexed to the supplementary affidavit. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondents that the Division Bench of this court vide judgment dated 18th October 2011 passed in L.P.A. No. 879 of 2003 in the case of Mantu Kumar & anr. vs. Bihar State Road Transport Corporation through its Chairman, Patna (Bihar) & others, has directed the Transport Department to frame a policy in accordance with law in order to arrive at a proper decision relating to allotment of shops to the persons who either had been evicted or are continuing, however, on the determination of the reasonable and fair rent so that it does not cause loss to the Public Exchequer in the matter. Counsel for the petitioner however states that while the appellants in the said case were held to be illegally continuing, whereas the petitioner has a better case as he was allowed to continue under tenancy as per annexure -2.;