CHHAGAN LAL Vs. ADITYA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application arises out of a proceeding for fixing fair rent of a shop in possession of respondent No. 1 as a tenant under the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. The petitioner landlord has challenged the order passed by the Commissioner, respondent No. 2, dated 16.9.1980. The petitioner is the owner of a building in Gaya town standing on 716 square feet of land and the respondent No. 1 is occupying a shop with an area of 170 square feet, He made an application in 1957 before the House Controller under Section 5 of the B.B.C. Act, 1947 and fair rent was fixed at Rs. 15.50 per month This order was passed on the basis of municipal valuation of Rs. 780.00 of the building. The petitioner filed an application in 1974 for revising the fair rent on the ground that the rent fixed earlier was too low. In the meantime, municipal valuation was also raised to Rs 1100.00. The respondent No 1 admitted the liability to pay Rs. 21.00 per month on the basis of the municipal valuation. The House Controller however got an inquiry made about the rate of rent for similar area in the locality and on that basis fixed the rent at Rs. 100.00 per month. The respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the Collector which was dismissed. He thereafter moved the Commissioner who has passed the impugned order setting aside the orders of the House Controller and the Collector.

(2.) In the meantime, the petitioner filed a suit for eviction of the respondent No. 1 and obtained a decree. He took a plea that in the circumstances the respondent No. 1 cannot be treated to be a tenant and must be held to be a trespasser. The learned Commissioner held that in view of this plea, he would not remand the case to the House Controller for a fresh decision. He also observed that if the eviction decree which was under challenge in appeal is set aside, it would be open to the petitioner to file a fresh application for enhancement before the House Controller.

(3.) The decision of the Commissioner to terminate the proceeding without determining the fair rent on the ground that relationship of landlord and tenant came to an end on the passing of the eviction decree is clearly illegal in view of the definition of the term 'tenant' in Section 2(f) of the aforesaid Act. The expression means any person by whom "rent is payable for a building and includes a person continuing in possession after termination of the tenancy in his favour." The respondent No. 1, therefore, continues to be a tenant even after the passing of the eviction decree. The learned Counsel for the respondent fairly conceded this position and stated that fair rent should be fixed at Rs. 21.00 per month in accordance with the municipal valuation.