JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This case arises out of an order of fair rent determined by the Rent Controller. 2. The petitioner is the tenant of the premises. The manner in which he is acting and handling the matter, as discussed hereunder, will reveal that the petitioner-tenant neither intends to enhance rent, nor intends immediate disposal of litigation but to prolong it. The building in question is in the prime locality of Ranchi in its main road bearing Municipal Holding No. 1605, Ward No. 2/B, Old Commissioners Compound, Ranchi. 3. The building is two storied comprising of about 40 numbers of rooms, hall, Verandah, Courtyard on an area about 10,000 sqf. It was taken by the petitioner on rent from the respondent @ Rs. 2,000/-per month. Admittedly, the petitioner is running a hotel in the premises. 4. It appears that the tenant having defaulted to pay rent for the period from 15th April, 1983 to 14th July, 1983, the landlord filed a Title (Eviction) Suit No. 182, wherein learned Special Sub-Judge, Ranchi vide its judgment dated 9th July, 1985 passed order against defendant-tenant (petitioner herein). The tenant-petitioner thereafter preferred appeal No. 71 of 1985(R), wherein this Court by its judgment dated 26th April, 1989 while allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Court below for eviction. The cross-examination of landlord was allowed in part and decreed, so far as the prayer for arrears of rent is concerned. 5. The landlord thereafter filed an application for enhancement of rent under the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, registered as B.B.C case No. 20 of 1991. The Sub-divisional Officer-cum-House Rent Controller vide its order dated 30th June, 1992 on hearing the parties and appraisal of evidences, decided rent @ Rs. 17,950/- per month. The tenant-petitioner moved in B.B.C. appeal No. 23-R 15 of 1992-93. In the said case, the appellant authority in exercise of power under Sub-section 2 of Section 16 of the B.B.C. Act, 1984 directed the tenant-petitioner to deposit the rent at the rate fixed by the Controller during the pendency of the appeal. The said order having not been complied, the appeal was initially dismissed on 5th March, 1993. 6. Another B.B.C appeal No. 36-R 15 of 1992-93 was also preferred by the landlord being not satisfied with the fixation of rent @ Rs. 17,950/- per month. The said order having not been complied, the appeal was initially dismissed on 5th March, 1993. 6. Another B.B.C appeal No. 36-R 15 of 1992-93 was also preferred by the landlord being not satisfied with the fixation of rent @ Rs. 17,950/- per month. The aforesaid appeal on hearing the parties, was allowed vide order dated 28th May, 1993 and the rent was enhanced to Rs. 25,398/- per month. 7. The tenant-petitioner thereafter preferred two revision cases, namely, H.R.C. revision Nos. 47 of 1993 and 34 of 1994. They were hard together by the revisional authority-Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi and both the them were disallowed by common order dated 30th December, 1997. 8. At this stage, one may take in to note different cases filed by the parties during the pendency of the revision cases. The revisional authority earlier passed a stay order on 19th July, 1993 against which the landlord moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2937(R). This Court vide order dated 14th January, 1994 set aside the interim order dated 19th July, 1993 and directed the revisional authority to dispose of the revision application in the light of the observation made in the said case. 9. The tenant-petitioner also preferred a writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 1806 of 1994(R) against an order passed by the revisional authority dated 31st January, 1994. In the said case, this Court vide order dated 25th January, 1995, directed the revisional authority to dispose of the revision application expeditiously and dismissed the writ petition. 10. L.RA. No. 34 of 1995(R) preferred against the order of learned Single Judge dated 25th January, 1995, was also dismissed with costs vide order dated 4th December, 1995. 11. Subsequently, a Civil Revision No. 147 of 1997(R) preferred by the landlord, was also not interfered by this Court vide its order dated 4th August, 1997. 12. The reference of above cases has been given to show the cases preferred by one or other party though it has no direct bearing with the merit of the present case. 13. One of the grounds taken by the counsel for the tenant- petitioner is that the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal in limine even if the petitioner had not complied the earlier order dated 5th March, 1993 in B.B.C. appeal No. 23-R 15 of 1992-93. 13. One of the grounds taken by the counsel for the tenant- petitioner is that the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal in limine even if the petitioner had not complied the earlier order dated 5th March, 1993 in B.B.C. appeal No. 23-R 15 of 1992-93. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Dr. Sachidanand Sinha v. Collector (FB), reported in 1989 PLJR. In the said case, the Court held as follows : "Accordingly, the question referred to the Full Bench is answered as follows : (1) Whenever the tenant prefers an appeal against an order of the Controller determining fair in respect of any building or premises or makes an application for revision to the Commissioner against the order of the appellate authority he is required to deposit the rent at the rate determined by the Controller month to month by the fifteenth day of the following month, together with arrears, if any. during the pendency of the appeal or revision, as the case may be; (2) The appellate authority or the Commissioner has to hear both the parties to determine as to whether the tenant has complied with the requirement of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act. If it is found that the tenant has not deposited the arrears of rent at the rate determined by the Controller, then the appellate authority or the Commissioner has to direct the tenant to deposit the said amount within the time fixed by the appellate authority or the Commissioner, as the case may be, and to direct to go on depositing the rent month to month by the fifteenth day of the following month at the rate determined by the Controller; (3). If there is non-compliance of the order passed by the appellate authority or the Commissioner in exercise of the power under Sub-section (2) of Section 16, then the defence against the fair rent order has to be struck off and the appeal or revision has to be heard and disposed of under Section 24 or 26 if the tenant had not put up any defence against the claim or the rate of rent by the landlord before the Controller." 14. The submission aforesaid made by the counsel for the petitioner is to be rejected in the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. The submission aforesaid made by the counsel for the petitioner is to be rejected in the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. Though the appeal preferred by the tenant-petitioner was rejected but the cross appeal preferred by landlord, B.B.C. appeal No. 36-R 15 of 1992-93 against the original order was heard on merit, wherein the tenant-petitioner was also heard. Thus, the petitioner was heard on merit in respect to the original order and thereafter the rent was fixed by the appellate authority @ Rs. 25,398/- per month. 16. The revisional authority also decided the case on merit on hearing the petitioner, thereby the petitioner cannot make grievance that the cases were not decided on merit or he was not heard, 17. In a fair rent fixation case, the rent is being fixed on appreciation of evidences taking into consideration the rent of similar type of building of adjoining area and other facts. This has been done by the Rent Controller, reassessed by the appellate authority and affirmed by the revisional authority. In this background, it is not possible for this Court to sit in appeal over such finding of fact under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 18. With a view to find out whether the tenant-petitioner actually intends to sort out the dispute or intends to proceed with litigation with a view to harass to landlord and delay in paying the fair rent as fixed by the Rent Controller this Court vide order dated 9th May, 2002 given opportunity to the petitioner to state whether he intends to sort out the matter or not. Further time was allowed on 13th June, 2002. In an affidavit, the petitioner intended to enhance the rent from Rs. 2000/-to Rs. 6,000/- per month. That means the petitioner intended to pay rent only @ 0.60 paise per sqf. The assessed rent fixed by the appellate authority i.e. @ Rs. 25,398/- per month if converted, it comes to about Rs. 2.23 paise per sqf., for 10,000 area sqf. 19. Prima facie, to know the sqf. area, number of rooms etc. when confronted by the Court, Mr. N.C. Dutta, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not running a hotel but a lodge, the building area is approximately 10,000 sqf. having approximately 40 rooms. The petitioner charges about Rs. 70/- per room per day. 20. 19. Prima facie, to know the sqf. area, number of rooms etc. when confronted by the Court, Mr. N.C. Dutta, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not running a hotel but a lodge, the building area is approximately 10,000 sqf. having approximately 40 rooms. The petitioner charges about Rs. 70/- per room per day. 20. From the aforesaid statement made at Bar by the counsel for the petitioner, one can assess the earning of the hotel/lodge. 21. The respondents in their additional counter affidavit have shown the rent as being charged in one or other lesser important area. It is stated that in the High Court compound, certain shops have been settled with the highest bidder by auction, e.g. Shop No. 2 measuring 10 x 10 ft. a telephone booth settled with one Sri San-tosh @ Rs. 130 per sqf. per months; Shop No. 3 settled with Sri Prem Shankar Prasad @ 80 per sqf. per month; Shop No. 4 settled with Sri Romesh Singh (c) Rs. 129 per sqf. etc. The aforesaid example given to suggest that even in lesser important area, on auction, persons are paying rent at higher rate whereas much less amount i.e. about Rs. 2.53 paise or Rs. 3/- per sqf. has been fixed in the case of tenant-petitioner. 22. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the tenant- petitioner do not intend to pay rent as evident from the back history, nor paid the arrears as per the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act at the time of appeal or revision. The petitioner even do not intend to sort out the matter as evident from the fact that more than a month time was granted by the Court. 25. From the discussions made above, reasons given, I find no reason to interfere with the appellate or revisional order. 24. There being no merit, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. Writ dismissed.