DABUR INDIA LTD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Keshav Shrivastav, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, learned A.C. to G.A-7, appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Pushkar Narayan Shahi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.5.

(2.) The present writ petition was originally filed questioning the validity and legality of the order dated 2.11.2004 (Annexure-6) passed in Revision Case No. 129 of 2001 by the respondent Commissioner, whereby he directed the writ petitioner to deposit the entire arrears of rent within a period of one month as per determination made by the respondent House Controller under the provisions of The Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (in short 'Act') and it was also indicated that only after such deposits, the revision application filed by the petitioner shall be admitted. Since the petitioner had already approached this Court by filing the present writ petition on 27.11.2004, hence, he did not deposit the arrears of rent as determined by the House Controller under the provisions of the Act by an order dated 6.6.1997 (Annexure-1). Therefore, due to non-compliance of the impugned order dated 2.11.2004 (Annexure-6), respondent Commissioner dismissed the revision petition filed on behalf of petitioner by an order dated 7.12.2004, on which date the petitioner was not present in the court. The Petitioner, having learnt about the dismissal of his revision application by the aforesaid order dated 7.12.2004, filed a restoration petition on 6.1.2005 praying therein that the issue regarding validity of order dated 2.11.2004 is under consideration before the High Court, Patna in C.W.J.C. No. 145726 of 2004, therefore, restoration application be allowed and revision application may be heard on its own merit. However, by an order dated 31.01.2006, respondent Commissioner, rejected the prayer for restoration of the revision application. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of respondent no. 2 , has filed I.A. No. 771 of 2006 seeking amendment in the writ petition and seeking permission to challenge the aforesaid order dated 31.01.2006 (Annexure-7).

(3.) Admittedly, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.5 or by the official respondents either in the main writ petition or in the interlocutory application filed on behalf of petitioner. This Court is of the considered opinion that in the factual background of the case, I.A. No.771 of 2006 is fit to be allowed and petitioner is entitled to challenge the order dated 31.1.2006 (Annexure-7) passed in B.B.C. Revision Case No. 129 of 2001 by respondent Commissioner, refusing to restore the aforesaid revision application and further refusing to hear the matter on merit. It is ordered accordingly.