(1.) NOTHING need to be written in much detail except that this is a sad story of the State of Bihar being a tenant of one Subodh Kumar Singh, the petitioner. The State of Bihar was in default of payment of rent of an accommodation utilised without payment of rent. The petitioner complained to the High Court by this petition on this arbitrary action submitting that if the State has taken his accommodation then he should not be relegated to an alternate remedy of filing a suit when there is no issue on the fact that there was a landlord and a tenant and further there was no issue that the accommodation was utilised and the rent was not paid.
(2.) THE writ petition initially noticed the aspect that rent was due but left the order on the step that rent would be payable when fund is available. Submission of the State was accepted that as and when the fund is available then rent would be paid to the landlord. Here, this Court felt that the Court deciding the writ petition erred that having come to the conclusion that rent was due from the State then the payment of it should not depend upon the vagaries on the fund being available. Clearly, the State was obliged to make payment of rent to the landlord month to month. In the circumstances, the order on the writ petition dated 30 August, 2001 is set aside.
(3.) /1/2013 Page 208 Dr.Shashi Kumar Narain Sinha Versus Smt.Pratima Sinha The Court indicated that any delay would now have to be reckoned with the payment of rent with 10. per cent simple interest on the rent due. On two dates, i.e., 5 December, 2001 and 6 December, 2001 learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, Standing counsel No. 2, sought an adjournment to ensure that rent is paid to the landlord. Today, a statement has been made along with an affidavit of the Executive Engineer, National High Way Division, Lakhisarai that the rent against the accommodation has been paid with 10 per cent interest. Counsel for the petitioner -appellant acknowledges that the rent with interest has been received.