SECY BALIKA SIKSHA BHAWAN RANCHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the orders Annexures-1 to 3 passed by the authorities under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 fixing fair rent of the premises in question. Annexure-1 is the order passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi, dated 24-1-1985 whereby he accepted the report submitted by the Executive Magistrate and has fixed the monthly rental at Rs. 5500/-. The order of the Sub-divisional Officer has been upheld by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi by his order Annexure-2 dated 5-11-1985. Annexure-3 is the order dated 14th July, 1987 passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, whereby she dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioners.

(2.) A few facts not in dispute may be stated thus:- Petitioner No. 2 is a school which is also a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. Petitioner No. 1 is its Secretary. Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 are the landlords of the premises in question. The premises is situate on the Circular Road in the city of Ranchi and the School runs in the premises in question. The building is an old building said to have been constructed in or about the year 1904. The petitioners have been the tenants in the aforesaid premises since the year 1934. At the time when the application for fixation of fair rent was filed by the respondents/landlords, a monthly rental of Rs. 200/- was payable by way of rent for the aforesaid premises.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted two main submissions for consideration in this writ application. He firstly submitted that under the proviso to sub-sec.(c) of S.8 of the Act, the maximum increase permissible in such a proceeding is 25% of the average monthly rent payable by the tenant over a period of 12 months preceding the first day of December, 1980. The submission is that on an application filed by the landlord for enhancement of rent, the authorities concerned may enhance the rent only to the extent of Rs. 25% over and above the rent paid in respect of the premises in question during the period of 12 months preceding the 1st day of December, 1980. In the instant case, the rent payable was Rs. 200/- per month. It was, therefore, submitted that the increase could not be more than 25% of the aforesaid rent namely not more than Rs. 50/- per month in terms of the aforesaid proviso. A grievance was made that the rent was enhanced from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 5500/- per month which was wholly unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of the Act. The second submission urged before me was that the authorities under the act mechanically placed reliance upon the report of the Executive Magistrate who had enquired into the matter and without considering whether the aforesaid report had been submitted having regard to the factors to be taken into account under the Act and the Rules the authorities have based their orders solely on the aforesaid enquiry report. According to the petitioners, a mere perusal of the report of the Executive Magistrate concerned would show that he has not taken into account the relevant considerations in recommending the enhancement of rent for the premises in question. The aforesaid report of the Executive Magistrate is Annexure-B to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 6.