LALIT MOHAN DALMIA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are tenants of a premises situated at Mohalla Lal Bazar in the district of Bettiah containing an area of approximately 1500 sq.ft. and comprising of seven rooms, a verandah and latrine on the first floor thereof. The landlords of the said premises filed an application before the Controller under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 for fixation of fair rent of the let out portion of the said premises. It was disclosed by the landlords that the said premises was let out to the appellants in the year 1958 at a monthly rent of Rs. 55/ -, which was later on enhanced to Rs. 110/ -. The Controller by his order dated 7.11.1990 fixed the fair rent of the said premises at Rs. 220/ -. Being aggrieved thereby, the land -lords preferred an appeal, which was registered as Appeal No. 390 of 1990. While the said appeal was pending, the landlords applied afresh for fixation of fair rent of the said premises. The application was allowed. The order allowing the said application was challenged by the appellants in C.W.J.C. No. 3905 of 1992. By a consent order the said writ petition was disposed of whereby the order impugned therein was set aside and the landlords were permitted to pursue their appeal. The landlords, however, filed a fresh appeal which was registered as R.M. 41 of 1991 -92. This appeal was remitted by the appellate order dated 22.2.1993 to the original authority under the Act. The order dated 22.2.1993 was challenged by the appellants in C.WJ.C. No. 3182 of 1993. The said challenge succeeded when this court by order dated 24.1.1994 quashed the said order dated 22.2.1993 and directed the Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah i.e. the appellate authority, to decide the appeal registered as R.M. 41/1992 in accordance with law after calling for a fresh report from an authority. In terms of the said order of this court, the Collector asked the Additional Collector to make a fresh enquiry and to submit a fresh report. Such a report was submitted, which suggested that the fair rent of the premises should be Rs. 1800/ - per month. Apart from the said report and the records of the first authority under the Act, which contained an earlier report of the Block Development Officer, there was nothing else on the records of the appellate authority. The records of the first authority under the Act did not contain any material except the said earlier report of the Block Development Officer. The Additional Collector who submitted the subsequent report did not make any effort to ascertain the prevailing rates of rent in the locality for the same or similar accommodation in similar circumstances at any time during the twelve months preceding the first day of December, 1980 or as on the date of his inspection. The same is the case in so far as the report of the Block Development Officer is concerned. Considering the materials before him, the appellate authority fixed the fair rent, as on the date of filing of the application at Rs.650/ - and at Rs.1025/ - from the date of his order passed on 8.8.1996. Challenging the said order of the appellate authority dated 8.8.1996 the landlords filed C.WJ. No. 4907 of 1997 and the appellants filed C.WJ.C. No. 7543 of 1997, after both of them having had lost before the revisional authority. While the landlords contended that the fair rent should not be less than Rs. 1800/ - per month as was recommended by the Additional Collector but may be stretched to Rs. 2500/ - which figure had also came up in the report of the Additional Collector, the tenants contended that enhancement beyond 25% is not permissible and in any event no procedure has been adopted to determine fair rent on the basis of principles laid down in the Act and the rules framed thereunder. These two writ petitions were heard simultaneously and the learned Single Judge by a common judgment and order dated 23.12.1998* while allowed the writ petition of the landlords and thereby increased the fair rent to Rs. 1800/ - dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order, the present Letters Patent Appeals have been filed.

(2.) THE Collector while fixing fair rent increased the rent by 25% for every three years and thereby arrived at the figure of Rs. 650/ - on the date of filing of the first petition for fixation of fair rent. Before us the learned counsel for the appellants did not question the correctness of the said fixation. He, however, contended that there was no just reason for fixation of fair rent at Rs. 1025/ - with effect from the date of the order of the appellate authority. He also contended that the writ court erred in fixing the fair rent at Rs. 1800/ -. It was submitted that no sooner fair rent was fixed at Rs. 650/ - as on the date of the application, the lis came to an end and accordingly there was no scope of fixation or re -fixation of fair rent at Rs. 1025/ - with effect from 8.8.1995. It was also contended that apart from the wishes of the Additional Collector that the fair rent should be Rs. 1800/ -, there is nothing on the record of the case which would support such wishes of the Additional Collector.

(3.) THE reports referred to above do not suggest that the said premises is situate in the heart of any market at Bettiah, although such contention had been put forward in the writ petition filed by the landlords. Apart from the said reports there was no other material in the records of the appellate authority. The conclusion would be that the appellate authority had no inkling that the said premises is situated in the heart of any market place at Bettiah. Similarly none of the reports suggests that the premises in question is being used for commercial activity. In the circumstances the appellate authority had no knowledge of the same.