(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of an appropriate writ, quashing the order of the Commissioner of the Patna Division in a case under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947. No relief has been claimed against the State of Bihar which appears to have been unnecessarily impleaded as opposite party No. 2.
(2.) It appears that the petitioners took a loan of Rs. 20,000/- from opposite party No. 1 and executed a 'rehan' deed on 5-7-1945, giving in mortgage their houses, godown and orchard etc. On 7-7-1945, the petitioners took back the 'rehan' pro-"perties on lease on the basis of 'karayanama' wherein it was stipulated that the petitioners would, pay Rs. 100/- per month as rent to opposite party No. 1. The rate of interest for the loan advanced on the basis of the 'rehan' was -/8/- per hundred per month and the total interest on Rs. 20,000/- came to Rs. 100/- per month. Under another 'rehan' deed executed on 14-9-1945, the petitioners took a further loan of Rs. 14,500/- from opposite party no. 1 and gave the same properties, in 'rehan'. The total interest on this amount came to Rs. 72/8/-per month. Thereafter, the petitioners executed a fresh 'Kerayanama' in respect of the lease of these properties, stipulating to pay Rs. 172/8/- instead of Rs. 100/- per month to opposite party no. 1 with effect from 1-10-1945. All these facts are mentioned in the 'kerayanama' itself.
(3.) Opposite party no. 1 filed an application under Section 11, Bihar Buildings Control Act, 1947, before the House Controller for an order of eviction of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners had not paid rent for the period from 15-9-1945 to 15-10-1947 and that they had sublet portions of the house without his permission. By his order dated 27-12-1950, the House Controller ordered the petitioners to vacate the house. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Collector, who, by his order dated 25-G-1951, set aside the House Controller's order on the ground that the petitioners were not tenants under opposite party No. 1, because the amount which they had agreed to pay as rent was in the nature of interest on the money advanced to them by opposite party No. 1. Opposite Party no. 1 filed an application for revision before the Commissioner, Patna Division. By his order dated 19-4-1952, the Commissioner set aside the Collector's order on the ground that he had acted beyond his jurisdiction in dealing meanings into the 'kerayanama' which were different from the clearly stipulated terms. He also directed the petitioners to vacate the house. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of this order.