ORDER In 1992, petitioner's house was occupied by the State for establishment of Primary Health Centre. The Chief Medical Officer fixed the rent at Rs. 10,000/- per year and that too much later, in about 1996. The petitioner, being aggrieved by that, moved the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-House Controller in the matter. He got an enquiry made through the Anchal Officer. On basis of floor area occupied and the prevailing rent, by order as communicated on 17.7.1996 (Annexure-3), he enhanced the rent to Rs. 1,928/- per month with effect from 1.7.1996. This order was duly communicated to all concerned. The district level authorities informed the State level authorities of the rent fixation and demanded for sanction of funds. When neither the enhanced rent nor the rent, as earlier fixed, was paid in full, the petitioner approached this Court by this writ application for a direction to allocate funds and make payments for the premises being occupied by the State. State has filed a counter affidavit in December 2003/January 2004 wherein it has been stated that the premises was occupied from March 1992 upto September 2003 and the rent payable at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per year for the said period comes to Rs. 1,15,831/-. As against this amount, earlier some payments were made to the extent of Rs. 44,924/-. Thus, as on October 2003, there remained a balance of Rs. 70,907/- which was paid to the petitioner and the petitioner received the same on 23.10.2003. It may be mentioned that the premises continues to be occupied by the State. 2. To my mind, this payment is not compliance of order of the Rent Controller. In exercise of statutory powers in terms of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, the Rent Controller had jurisdiction to fix the fair and equitable rent. He did the same and that order remained unchallenged. Thus, with effect from 1.7.1996, the petitioner was entitled to rent of Rs. 1,928/- per month that is Rs. 23,136/- per annum and not Rs. 10,000/- as earlier determined by the Chief Medical Officer. This difference with effect from 1.7.1996 remains to be paid still. There is no legal or factual justification for withholding the said payment as also current payment so long as the premises remain in occupation of the State for its Primary Health Centre. 3. 23,136/- per annum and not Rs. 10,000/- as earlier determined by the Chief Medical Officer. This difference with effect from 1.7.1996 remains to be paid still. There is no legal or factual justification for withholding the said payment as also current payment so long as the premises remain in occupation of the State for its Primary Health Centre. 3. After hearing the parties and with their consent, I dispose of this writ application with a direction to the respondent-Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Patna (respondent No.4) to ensure full payment of all rent due as indicated above upto date to the petitioner within two months from the production of a copy of this order before him. The said payment cannot be conditioned upon any paper to be furnished by the petitioner because the respondents do not dispute occupation or the right of the petitioner to receive the rent in question. In case the payment is not so made within two months from the date as aforesaid then the payment would be made alongwith interest at the rate of 6% from the time it was due and such interest the State would be permitted to charge from the persons concerned for the delay in payment but that exercise would not delay the payment to the petitioner. 4. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed.