AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No.6.Â
This writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:-
 ""That the petitioner prays for the issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing of the order dated 01.10.2010 passed in H.R.C.
Revision Case No.09/98-99 in case of Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation, Dumka Vs. Vishwanath Singhania & Vijay Singhania by the
Commissioner, Santhal Pragna Division at Dumka, as a revisional authority under the provisions of Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction)
Control Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as Rent Control Act) wherein and whereunder the Divisional Commissioner by exercising his power of
revisional authority under the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2000 confirmed the order dated 07.10.1998 passed in
H.R.C.A. Case No.1/96-97 by Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, the appellate authority under the said Rent Control Act who had in the said order
confirmed the order of the Rent Controller dated 29.12.1995 passed in B.A. Case No.08/89-90 in case of Vishwanath Singhania & Others Vs. Bihar
State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation, Dumka.
Petitioner further prays for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the said order of Commissioner, Santhal Pragna Division at Dumka dated
01.10.2010 passed in Case No. HRCR 09/98-99 and order of Deputy Commissioner, Dumka dated 07.10.1998 passed in HRCA Case No.1/96-97 and
order of the learned S.D.O. â€"cum- Rent Controller dated 29.12.1995 passed in B.A. Case No.08/89-90.
Petitioner further prays that the excess of amount deposited by the petitioner under the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar dated
30.10.1998 as and when the same on calculation be found in excess of the amount of rent due to the petitioner determined under the and in
accordance with the provisions of Sections 5, 7 & 8 of the said Rent Control Act.Â
Petitioner further prays that the operation of the impugned order and the proceedings of the Execution Case No.01/2011 pending before the Rent
Controller may kindly be stayed till the disposal of this writ petition.""Â
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order as contained in Annexure-2 has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer
â€"cum- House Rent Controller, Deoghar which is dated 29.12.1995 wherein the petitioner has been directed to pay the enhanced rent @ Rs.5370/-
for the period from 01.04.1990 to 31.05.1998. He submits that originally the rent was @ Rs.484/- per month and it has been enhanced to Rs.5370/-
@ Rs.1.50 per square feet. Learned counsel submits that so far as petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has also let out the various property in the
Bazar Samiti and the rent realized by the petitioner was much less as what has been fixed by the impugned order. He submits that the provisions of
Section 8 of Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1981 has not been properly taken into consideration by the SubDivisional Officer
â€"cum- House Rent Controller, Deoghar. He submits that the rent could not have been enhanced to more than 25% as per the mandate of section 8
of the aforesaid Act. He submits that the said order has been subsequently confirmed by the appellate authority and also by the revisional authority
and both the appellate order as well as the revisional orders are under challenge. He submits that the impugned orders are perverse and deserves to
be set aside. It is submitted that that during the pendency of the litigation certain amount has been paid by the petitioner.Â
Learned counsel appearing for the private respondent, on the other hand, submits that the impugned order as contained in Annexure-2, passed by
the Sub-Divisional Officer â€"cum- House Rent Controller, Deoghar dated 29.12.1995 has been passed on the basis of the recommendation made by
Sri D.K. Mishra, Executive Magistrate, Deoghar who, after conducting thorough enquiry including the rent which was being paid in the vicinity of the
area , has recommended for payment of rent @ Rs.1.50/- per square feet . No objection was ever raised by the petitioner before the said authority to
the report of Sri D.K. Mishra and accordingly the authority has rightly passed the impugned order on the basis of the recommendation of Sri D.K.
Mishra, Executive Magistrate, Deoghar. He submits that now it is not open to question the report of Mr. D.K. Mishra, Executive Magistrate,
Deoghar as no objection to said report was ever raised before the said authority. He further submits that otherwise also so far as report of Mr.
D.K. Mishra is concerned, it is as per the mandate of law. On the point of the maximum limit of enhance of rent by 25% as per the provision of the
Act and as argued by the petitioner is concerned , the counsel submits that the issue has been settled by this Hon'ble court in the case of Secretary,
Balika Shiksha Bhawan Vrs. State of Bihar reported in 1990 (1) PLJRÂ wherein the provisions of the aforesaid Act has been interpreted and it has
been held the 25% limit is not the maximum limit for the enhancement of rent under the aforesaid Act and the rules framed thereunder. He submits
that no interference is called for under the facts and circumstances of this case by exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
He submits that the rent as fixed by the authority has not been paid inspite of the fact that there is no stay order passed in this writ petition.
After hearing the counsels for the parties and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief
to the petitioner, particularly in view of the fact that the impugned order dated 29.12.1995 has been passed on the basis of the recommendation of Mr.
D.K. Mishra, Executive Magistrate, Deoghar who recommended the payment of rent @ Rs.1.50/- per square feet after considering all the relevant
parameters for the purpose of fixing of rent and to this particular report no objection was ever filed by the petitioner before the authority. There being
no illegality in the order of fixation of rent the same has been rightly confirmed by the appellate and the revisional authority. On the point of the limit of
enhancement of rent being 25% as submitted by the petitioner, this court finds that this issue has been settled by this court in the case of Secretary,
Balika Shiksha Bhawan Vrs. State of Bihar (supra) after quoting and considering the provisions of the aforesaid Act and the rules framed thereunder
the Hon’ble court held as follows:- Â
“The submission of the respondents must be accepted. The proviso may not be very happily worded, but, its intentment is clear. It provides
that in an application made by the landlord for fixation of fair rent on the ground that the rent being paid by the tenant is low, the Controller shall fix
rent at a figure which shall not be less than the average of 12 months’ rent payable before 1.12.1980 increased by 25%. The proviso does not
provide anything more than the minimum. It does not provide for a maximum otherwise it could have been simply stated that rent shall not be less
than 12 months average rent paid immediately before 1.12.1980 and not more than 25% over and above such rent. I have therefore, no doubt that
the proviso to sub-section (c) to section 8 only lays down the minimum that the Controller must determine by way of monthly rent where an application
is made to him by the landlord u/s 5 of the Act complaining that the rent being paid to him by the tenant is low. The Act is of the year 1982 the rules
were framed in the year 1983 and the relevant date for recokoning the average monthly rental being the 1st December, 1980, the additional sum of
25% represents what the Legislature thought was the probable increase in the rent during the period. I therefore, hold that there is nothing in the
aforesaid proviso to hold that the Controller is not authorised to fix the fair rent which is more than 25% of the average monthly rent paid during the
period of 12 months preceding the 1st of December, 1980. In my view, it is open to the Controller to fix higher amount of rent by way of fair rent
having regard to the provisions of section 8 of the Act and rule 3 of the Rules.â€
The contention of the petitioner that the petitioner itself has been letting out the premises at a particular rate has no relevance because of the reason
that in the recommendation Mr. D.K. Mishra, Executive Magistrate, Deoghar has considered all the relevant aspects of the matter and the said report
was never objected to by the petitioner before the said authority which has been confirmed by the appellate authority as well as by the revisional
authority. This Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.Â
Considering the submission of the petitioner that the petitioner has paid only a part of the fair rent as fixed by the authorities and considering the fact
that the writ petition has been pending since 2011 and there is no interim order passed in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to make
payment of the balance amount to the concerned respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in
case of default interest @ 12% per month will be payable by the petitioner to the respondents from the date of the impugned order i.e. 29.12.1995 till
the date of payment.Â