DR. P. DAYAL Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the University. A proceeding under the provisions of the Bihar Government Premises (Rent, Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1956, has been instituted on a petition filed by the University before the competent authority. The proceeding is still pending. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the premises in question is not a Government premises within the meaning of law, the proceeding under the provisions of the Act aforesaid cannot be entertained by the competent authority. In this connection it is stated that the petitioner is in occupation of a premises which is that of the University and not that of the Government.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the petitioner has retired more than a year back and he is still continuing in the premises which was allotted to him while he was in the University service. So far as the building is concerned, it is not disputed that the building belongs to the State Government, but the building is admittedly in possession of the University. A reference in this connection to Sec. 53(2) of the Patna University Act would be relevant. It states.

(3.) It would thus be seen that so far as the ownership of the building is concerned, it has not been transferred to the University but it is only the maintenance and control which by virtue of the Sec. aforesaid have been transferred to the University. The building originally belonged to the State. By virtue of Sec. 53(2) of the Patna University Act only the maintenance and control were transferred to the University.