The Patna High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 11(1)(c) of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982.
The petitioner, Shyam Babu Sah, sought to declare the proviso unconstitutional, arguing it was unbridled, uncontrolled, and unguided. He contended that the proviso allowed partial eviction without clear guidelines, violating Articles 14, 21, and 300A of the Constitution.
The bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy that the proviso was constitutional, citing the three-fold requirements for its enforcement:
(1) landlord’s personal necessity,
(2) Court’s satisfaction that partial eviction meets the landlord’s requirement, and
(3) tenant’s agreement.
The court rejected the petitioner’s contention that the proviso was unworkable, citing the definition of “building” under Section 2(b) of the Act.
The court relied on precedents from the Supreme Court, including Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit (supra) , Satheedevi (supra) , Kalyan Singh Chouhan (supra), and Namit Sharma (supra) , to establish that:
1. Statutes must be interpreted in their natural, ordinary sense.
2. Courts cannot rewrite or recast legislation.
3. Laws may be declared unconstitutional for contravening fundamental rights or legislative competence.
The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the challenge to the proviso’s constitutional validity.