Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 199 (JHR)

Suresh Kumar Agarwal v. State of Jharkhand

2016-01-25

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2016
ORDER : 1. Aggrieved by order dated 10.05.2013 in House Control Revision No. 79 of 2007, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Briefly stated, on the application of the respondent no. 5 for determination of fair rent, H.C. Case No. 41 of 1995 was initiated. The father of the petitioner was occupying the premises for the last 40 years on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/. The Block Development Officer was directed to conduct an enquiry and submit a report whereupon, the Circle Officer asked the Labour Enforcement Officer to conduct an enquiry. The Circle officer forwarded the report on 10.10.1998 and there after, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 30.10.1998 to file his reply. After hearing the parties, the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-House Rent Controller passed order dated 16.05.2000 fixing fair rent @ 7/- per sq. ft. The appeal as well as revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a specific plea was taken by the petitioner before the authority that no notice was issued to the petitioner before the Circle Officer submitted a report and that without taking measurement a report was submitted however, the said plea was not considered by the courts below. Referring to Rule 3 (i) of Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1983, the learned counsel submits that the Circle Officer was under a duty to hear the tenant before a report is submitted to the House Rent Controller. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. The reply filed by the petitioner in H.C. Case No. 41 of 1991 discloses that a plea on the question of hearing by the Circle Officer was not taken by the petitioner. Neither Section 8 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 nor Rule 3 of Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1983 provides that the evidence regarding the prevailing rent in the area must be collected in presence of the tenant. Rule 3 (i) & (ii) provides as under: "Rule 3 (i) The Controller may determine the fair rent of a building either on the application by the landlord or by the tenant in possession of the building or on his own motion as also on the application of the landlord or prospective tenant. Rule 3 (i) & (ii) provides as under: "Rule 3 (i) The Controller may determine the fair rent of a building either on the application by the landlord or by the tenant in possession of the building or on his own motion as also on the application of the landlord or prospective tenant. (ii) In determining the fair rent the Controller shall take into account the following factors: (a) The prevailing rates of rent in the locality for the same or similar accommodation in similar circumstances at any time during the twelve months preceding the date of his order; (b) The increased cost of repairs required to be made in the building; (c) The amenities, general or special provided in the building; (d) The compound or the open land attached to the building; (e) The type of construction and the location of the building and the nature of tenancy, i.e. whether it is for residential purpose, business purpose, etc. (f) The Municipal tax or corporation tax of the building; (g) Any lawful agreement entered into by the landlord and the tenant." 4. The report submitted by the Circle Officer discloses that at the first instance an enquiry was conducted by the Labour Enforcement Officer and on 16.08.1998 the Circle Officer himself inspected the shop in question. The Circle Officer has made enquiry from the adjoining shopkeepers also. Noticing that the shop in question is situated at main road in front of a cinema hall and it is close to the bus stand and the wholesale mandi, the Circle Officer recommended that the fair rent be fixed @ 7/per sq. ft. The House Rent Controller issued notice to the petitioner to file his response. In his reply the petitioner has mainly disputed the authority of the landlord though, it was contended by the petitioner/tenant that, other tenants are not paying rent as suggested by the Circle Officer and the Circle Officer did not consider the annual valuation of the building. I find that in the proceeding of H.C. Case No. 41 of 1998, the petitioner did not produce evidence on the aforesaid issues. The appellate authority and revisional authority affirmed the order passed by the House Rent Controller. The issue is concluded by the concurrent finding by three courts. 5. Considering the aforesaid fact, I am not inclined to interfered in the matter and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 6. The appellate authority and revisional authority affirmed the order passed by the House Rent Controller. The issue is concluded by the concurrent finding by three courts. 5. Considering the aforesaid fact, I am not inclined to interfered in the matter and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 6. I.A. No. 6763 of 2015 stands dismissed.