Wrijnandan Prasad Kishor vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

Date : 21-08-2026

The petitioner has filed the Writ petition for the following reliefs:

The brief facts culled out of the Writ petition are that the petitioner being a farmer, had given his godown measuring about 3339 sq. ft. to the respondent/Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited for storage of paddy, rice, wheat, sugar and other food grains under an oral arrangement, since 02.11.2006. Initially, the respondents paid rent at the rate of Rs.2,671/- per month up to 31.12.2011.

Thereafter, the godown was again taken for storage from 01.01.2012, and the District Manager, Nalanda recommended enhancement of the rent to Rs.8,000/- per month vide letter dated 27.01.2012. However, the respondents continued to pay only Rs.3,342/- per month. The petitioner claims the difference of rent from 01.01.2012 and further relies upon a subsequent rent fixation at the rate of Rs.6/- per sq. ft.

The petitioner made several representations to the respondents requesting for payment of rent at the revised rate, but his grievance has not been considered by the respondents.

The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have continued to use the petitioner's godown while paying rent substantially below the rate recommended by their own District Manager and the subsequently fixed rate and, therefore, submitted that the respondents may be directed to consider and pay the differential rent legally due to the petitioner, in accordance with the applicable rules and the materials on record.

A counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavits were filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. The Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 submits that the petitioner's godown was initially taken on rent in the year 2006 at Rs.2,671/- per month and the said rent was paid up to 31.12.2011. The godown was again taken on rent from 01.01.2012, and although respondent No. 4 recommended enhancement of the rent to Rs.8,000/- per month, the competent authority at the head office, vide letter dated 07.08.2012, fixed the rent at Rs.3,342/- per month on the basis of the dimensions and storage capacity of the godown. The said rate was subsequently continued.

The Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 further submits that the recommendation of respondent No. 4 for payment of Rs.8,000/- was only a recommendation and was never approved by the competent authority. There was also no agreement between the petitioner and the Corporation, for payment of rent at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month, as such, the petitioner cannot claim the said rate merely on the basis of the recommendation.

It is further submitted by the Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 that the petitioner's title over the godown is disputed by a third party and the dispute is pending before the competent civil court. The Corporation also received a complaint seeking stoppage of rent on account of the said title dispute.

The Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 further submits that the Corporation has not been using the godown since 2014 and, as per the records, the rent payable to the petitioner has already been paid. In view of the disputed title, i.e., the pending civil litigation and the absence of any approval or agreement for rent at Rs.8,000/-per month, no further amount is payable by the respondents.

The Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 5, therefore, submits that the claim raised by the petitioner involves disputed questions of fact and contractual/rentary entitlement, which cannot be adjudicated in the present Writ jurisdiction and prayed that the Writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

The Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply to the counter affidavit and on the basis of the supplementary affidavit, submits that the rent of the petitioner's godown has been fixed at a lower rate, than the rate applicable to similarly situated godowns. It is contended that the respondents themselves have fixed rent at Rs.6/-per sq. ft. for another godown in the same locality, whereas the petitioner's godown has been assessed at a lower rate, which, according to the petitioner, is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents have wrongly stated that a title dispute is pending in Case No. 2/2013 and have thereby sought to justify withholding the petitioner's claim. It is submitted that the petitioner has produced documents showing his title/interest in the property, including the registration certificate and subsequent records of Sarvoday Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.

It is further submitted by the Learned counsel for the petitioner that the land is situated on NH-120 and is being used as commercial property, and the petitioner has placed on record the relevant MVR and other documents in support thereof. The petitioner therefore claims that the rent ought to be assessed by treating the property as commercial land.

The Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that the respondents have retained/locked the premises since 2015 and have not restored possession to the petitioner, thereby preventing him from using the property for his business. On these grounds, the petitioner seeks payment of the appropriate rent, including the claimed revised rent, and consequential relief in accordance with law.

Having considered the rival submissions and the materials placed on record, this Court finds that the petitioner was paid rent at the rate of Rs.2,671/- per month up to 31.12.2011 and, thereafter, at the revised rate of Rs.3,342/-per month from 01.01.2012. Though respondent No. 4 recommended enhancement of the rent to Rs.8,000/- per month, the said recommendation was not approved by the competent authority. Rather, the competent authority, vide letter dated 07.08.2012, fixed the rent at Rs.3,342/- per month on the basis of the dimensions and storage capacity of the godown.

This Court further finds that there is no agreement between the parties for payment of rent at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month. A mere recommendation by the District Manager, which was not approved by the competent authority, does not confer any enforceable right upon the petitioner to claim rent at the recommended rate.

It is also not in dispute that the respondents have not been using the godown since 2014 and that the petitioner has already received the rent payable under the rate fixed by the competent authority. The petitioner's claim for a higher rate, based upon the alleged rate applicable to another godown and the documents subsequently placed on record, requires determination of disputed questions of fact and contractual entitlement, which cannot appropriately be adjudicated in the present Writ jurisdiction.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no enforceable right in favour of the petitioner for payment of rent at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month or at the claimed rate of Rs.6/- per sq. ft. The relief sought by the petitioner, therefore, cannot be granted.

Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed.

Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.