DWARKADAS MANGALCHAND Vs. MANMOHAN KEDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging order dated 14.6.2006 in BBC Case No. 51-R-15 of 1992, order dated 12.12.2009 in BBC Appeal Case No. 36-R-15 of 2006-2007, order dated 16.12.2009 in BBC Appeal Case No. 39-R-15 of 2006-2007 and order dated 9.3.2010 passed by the respondent No. 4, the present writ petition has been filed. It is not in dispute that the respondent No. 1 is the owner and landlord of the double storied building premises situated at Cart Sarai Road, Upper Bazar, Ranchi in which the petitioner was inducted as a tenant long back. The rent was enhanced in the year, 1994 and on an application filed by the landlord, rent has been fixed at Rs. 4,433/- vide order dated 14.6.2006 in BBC Case No. 51-R-15 of 1992. Referring to the appellate order passed in the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is apparently calculation error and in fact, the area of Chajja, Verandah etc. have also been taken into consideration for fixing the rent of the premises in question, which apparently is erroneous. This aspect of the matter has been ignored by the authorities and therefore, the matter requires interference by this Court.

(2.) The learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has supported the impugned order passed in the present proceeding and submitted that the matter has been adjudicated in 3 proceedings and therefore, it does not require any interference by this Court.

(3.) I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. It appears that in the proceeding of BBC. 51-R-15 of 1992 the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-House Rent Controller vide order dated 14.6.2006 fixed the rent at Rs. 4,433/-. This order has been affirmed in Appeal being Appeal Case No. 39-R-15 of 2006-2007 and the revisional authority that is, respondent No. 4 vide order dated 9.3.2010 affirmed the appellate order. The matter is concluded by the concurrent finding of fact. A Rent Tribunal is constituted as tribunal of limited jurisdiction and since, the rent fixed by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-House Rent Controller has been affirmed by the appellate authority as well as by the revisional authority, I find no reason to entertain the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.