Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 903 (PAT)

Ishwar Prasad Jhunjhunwala v. Lalit Kr. Dalmia

1998-12-23

N.PANDEY

body1998
ORDER : Both the writ petitions have been filed for quashing the ORDER :dated 8.8.1996. passed by the Collector. West Champaran in Case No.R.M.41 of 199293. whereby. the house rent of the holding in question has been fixed at Rs.650/per month with effect from November. 1990 and Rs.1025/- from the date of the ORDER :. With consent of the parties, these cases have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common ORDER :. 2. Admittedly petitioners Ishwar Prasad Jhunjhunwala & anr. (C.W.J.C.No. 4907/97) are the landlords of the holding in question whereas Lalit Mohan Dalmia and another (petitioners in C.W.J.C.No. 7543/97) are the tenants. Initially in the year. 1958 the first floor of the building was let out at the rate of Rs.55/-, which was later raised to Rs.110/- besides the other charges. Since until the year, 1990 there was no revision of the rent. the landlords tiled an application under Section 5 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease. Rent & Eviction) Control Act hearing H.C.Case No.33 of 1990-91 for fixation of fair rent. The House Controller by his ORDER :dated 7.11.1990 fixed the fair rent at Rs. 220/-. Petitioners/.landlords being aggrieved by such a fixation. filed appeal etc. and ultimately the matter was brought to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3905 of 1992. On 13.5.1992 this Court after hearing both the parties. disposed of the writ application to enable them to agitate the disputed facts before the Collector. Thereafter, as per the ORDER :of this Court the landlords preferred appeal before the Collector. which has been presently disposed of by the impugned ORDER :. 3. It would appear From the ORDER :at the Collector that a report was called for from the Additional Collector after holding spot enquiry about the actual area of the building with a suggestion for the proposed rent. The Additional Collector thereafter held spot verification of the building, perused the previous enquiry report of the Block Development Officer and recommended that the rent of the house should be fixed at RS.1800/-. It would be relevant to mention that the Block Development Officer in his report had suggested Rs. 2500/- per month. The learned Collector ultimately heard both the parties and also perused the report of the Block Development Officer as well as the Additional Collector. He also noticed that since last several years rent of the building was not revised. It would be relevant to mention that the Block Development Officer in his report had suggested Rs. 2500/- per month. The learned Collector ultimately heard both the parties and also perused the report of the Block Development Officer as well as the Additional Collector. He also noticed that since last several years rent of the building was not revised. But he neither agreed to the suggestion of the Additional Collector nor the Block Development Officer. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/landlords contended that from a bare reference to the facts, brought on record. it would appear that the premises in question consists of seven rooms with attached varandah. latrine and star-case. This is also not in dispute that the building is located in a busy market and also being used for commercial purposes. Therefore. the Anchal Adhikari had at the initial stage rightly recommended the rent of the building at Rs. 2500/-. The Additional Collector has also in his report taken note of the recommendation of the Block Development Officer, but for the reasons best known to him. he recommended for RS.18001- per month. Therefore, it was not proper for the Collector to fix a lower rate of rental, because save and except the report of the Additional Collector and the Block Development Officer, there was no other material before him. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the tenants (Lalit Mohan Dalmia & anr.) while attacking the impugned ORDER :, contended that from a bare reference to the provisions of Section 8(1) (c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act (in short 'the Act') it would appear that fair rent can not be enhanced by more than 25 per cent of the average monthly rent, so received by the landlord during such period in addition to enhancement, if any. In support of such submission he also placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Ram Adhin Singh vs. The State of Bihar & ors.,1993(1) 'PLJR 637. Learned counsel submits that both the enquiring officers and the Collector have completely missed this aspect while fixing the fair rent. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the landlords contended that the impugned ORDER :of the Collector is quite arbitrary and unjust. Because the Additional Collector after holding enquiry and verifying all the relevant materials had suggested the rent at RS.1800/-. Learned counsel submits that both the enquiring officers and the Collector have completely missed this aspect while fixing the fair rent. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the landlords contended that the impugned ORDER :of the Collector is quite arbitrary and unjust. Because the Additional Collector after holding enquiry and verifying all the relevant materials had suggested the rent at RS.1800/-. Therefore, unless there was any other materials and evidence suggesting lower rent. it was proper for the Collector to accept the reports submitted by the Anchal Adhikari and Additional Collector. He further contended having regard to the views taken by a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Saraswati Devi & ors. vs. Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division & ors., 1996(1) PLJR 924 , the interpretation of Section 8(1) (c) of the Act, as given by the learned Single Judge in the case of Ram Adhin Singh (supra) can not be held proper. In the case of Saraswati Devi & ors. VS. Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division & ors. (supra) the petitioners had challenged the ORDER :of the Collector and Commissioner, Bhagalpur, respectively, enhancing the monthly rental of the holding from RS.135/- to Rs.1862/-. The Division Bench, after examining different decisions including that in the case of Ram Adhin Singh (supra). dismissed the writ application and approved the rental of RS.1862/- and interpreted the requirement of Section 8(1)(c) of the Act as follows: "This is how it has been provided under Section 8(1)(c) that the prevailing rate of rent in the locality during 12 months preceding the 1st day of December, 1980 shall be at a figure which shall not be less than the average monthly rent paid by a tenant for similar accommodation over 12 months period prior to 1st December, 1990. On this minimum fair rent the proviso adds increase of twenty five per cent of the average monthly rent, on account of cost of site etc. In this way the proviso has broadened the contours of the main provision of Section 8(1) (c). The provisions in the proviso have to be treated as an integral part of the main provision. The provisions of Rule 3(ii) (a) to (g) also takes into account the provisions of the proviso to Section 8. In our opinion the enhancement of rent under the impugned ORDER :cannot be said to be contrary to the provisions of Section 8(1)(c), including its proviso." 7. The provisions of Rule 3(ii) (a) to (g) also takes into account the provisions of the proviso to Section 8. In our opinion the enhancement of rent under the impugned ORDER :cannot be said to be contrary to the provisions of Section 8(1)(c), including its proviso." 7. Therefore. keeping in mind, the interpretation of Section 8(1)(c) as given by the Division Bench read with Rule 3(ii) (a) to (g). it would not be proper to hold that the enhancement 01 the rent cannot be more than 25 percent as provided in the proviso. 8. Coming to the merit of the present case, there is no dispute that the Additional Collector after examining the report of the Block Development Officer and holding local inspection had suggested a rental of Rs.1800/-. This is also not in dispute that with respect to the same holding previously the Block Development Officer had conducted an inquiry as per the direction of the Sub-Divisional Officer and had recommended for Rs.2500/- per month. But in view of the ORDER :of this Court in CWJC No.3905 of 1992. the case was remanded before the Collector. He got a fresh inquiry conducted through the Additional Collector who in fact suggested Rs.1800/-only. But the learned Collector has neither accepted the report of the Block Development Officer nor that of the Additional Collector and held that on calculation at the rate of 25 per cent enhancement on every three years. the amount comes to Rs.650/- on the date of filing of the first petition for fixation of fair rent and RS.1025/-with effect from 1995 although there was no material before him to substantiate such finding. 9. That apart as would appear from the averments made in the writ application nearly an area of 1500 Sq. ft. consisting of seven rooms, varandah etc., are in possession of the tenant. It would further appear that there was no enhancement of the rent of the building after the year. 1990. Therefore, having regard to the rise in the rental of other buildings and other surrounding circumstances including locality etc., to my mind the rental of RS.1800/- per month suggested by the Additional Collector appears justified. Though in CWJC No.7543 of 1997, the respondents tenants have also attacked the validity of the impugned ORDER :. 1990. Therefore, having regard to the rise in the rental of other buildings and other surrounding circumstances including locality etc., to my mind the rental of RS.1800/- per month suggested by the Additional Collector appears justified. Though in CWJC No.7543 of 1997, the respondents tenants have also attacked the validity of the impugned ORDER :. but having regard to the view which I have just expressed, there may not be any further scope to reduce the rental as desired by them. 10. I therefore, taking into consideration the facts stated above, allow CWJC No.4907 of 1997 to the extent indicated above but dismiss CWJC NO.7543 of 1997. The House Controller is accordingly, directed to fix monthly rental of the building at the rate of Rs.1800/- as suggested by the Additional Collector.