Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2288 (JHR)

Birendra Kumar Singh, S/o Late Ganesh Singh v. Jharkhand State

2018-10-22

ANIRUDDHA BOSE, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, B.B.MANGALMURTI, B.B.MANGALMURTI

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. The origin of the appeal lies in dispute over determination of fair rent in respect of approximately 600 sq. ft. of land with structure thereon (henceforth described as subject-premises) in Mohalla Niwaranpur near Ranchi Railway Station. The appellant claims to be the tenant of the subject–premises and at present is paying rent at the rate of Rs.38 per month. This dispute has already undergone two rounds of litigations. There is also a subsisting eviction suit instituted by the respondent no. 5 against the appellant pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ranchi registered as Eviction Suit No. 7 of 2007, of which we are apprised in course of hearing of this appeal. So far as this appeal is concerned, that suit is not of any significance. The present appeal arises from determination of fair rent of the subject–premises by the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Ranchi in B.B.C. 10/2005 at the rate of Rs.6.50 per sq. ft. for covered area and Rs.2.50 per sq. ft. for common area. The order was passed on 16th September, 2011. The Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority confirmed such fair rent determination. The appellant’s writ petition seeking quashing of the order of the said three statutory authorities was dismissed by the learned First Court by a judgment and order dated 18th January, 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 4256 of 2015. The present appeal arises out of that judgment of dismissal. We are avoiding narration of particulars pertaining to earlier stages of these proceedings and outcome thereof, as we are, at present, concerned only with the determination of fair rent in 2011 by the Court of Sub Divisional Officer and confirmation of that order by the appellate and revisional authorities. 2. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellant, has argued before us that the authorities have not adhered to the provisions of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1983, while determining fair rent. He has specifically brought to our notice clauses 3 (iia) and (f) of the said Rules. His submission is that the statutory authorities have not taken into consideration the factors specified in those clauses while arriving at fair rent. The said two clauses specify two factors which are to be considered for determination of fair rent. He has specifically brought to our notice clauses 3 (iia) and (f) of the said Rules. His submission is that the statutory authorities have not taken into consideration the factors specified in those clauses while arriving at fair rent. The said two clauses specify two factors which are to be considered for determination of fair rent. First factor is 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 order. The second factor is municipal tax or corporation tax of the building. Mr. Singh has asked for remand of the matter but to show his client’s bona fide, he has indicated to us that his client is willing to make certain lump-sum deposit and enhance the rent without prejudice to his client’s rights and contentions. 3. In an earlier proceeding, the House Rent Controller, Ranchi had determined the rent at Rs. 6 per sq. ft. for covered area, Rs. 2 per sq. ft. for open space and Rs.1 per sq. ft. for bathroom. That order was issued on 3rd December, 2007, but was subsequently invalidated and the matter was remanded. On remand, the House Rent Controller-cum-Sub Divisional Controller got the issue enquired by the Executive Magistrate and used fair rent determination in 2007 as the pegging point for determination of fair rent afresh. While passing the order of 16th September, 2011, he marginally enhanced the rent considering more than three and a half years had passed since then. In the initial computation of the Executive Magistrate, however, we do not find the foundation of arrival at such amount as fair rent. Neither the basis thereof is revealed in the earlier order of 3rd December, 2007. It has not been spelt out how the said sum for different categories of land and structure have been computed. We are of the view that fresh computation is necessary, taking into account the factors specified in the aforesaid provisions of the 1983 Rules. 4. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord, referred to Section 5 of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000 and submitted that determination has to be made of fair rent on the basis of summary enquiry and defended the computation on that ground. But summary enquiry also entails enquiry. 4. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord, referred to Section 5 of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000 and submitted that determination has to be made of fair rent on the basis of summary enquiry and defended the computation on that ground. But summary enquiry also entails enquiry. Absolutely arbitrary assessment cannot be passed off as summary enquiry. The report of the Executive Magistrate does not reveal how the sums of Rs. 6/-, Rs. 2/- and Rs. 1/- per sq. ft. came to be determined as fair rent of different portions of the subject– premises. The Order of 3rd December, 2007 also does not disclose the foundation for such determination. 5. Mr. Singh had also raised the point that the respondent no. 5 was not his client’s landlord and hence not entitled to maintain the proceeding for determination of fair rent. But that is a question of fact and we decline to entertain that question for adjudication at this stage of the proceeding. 6. In such circumstances, in our opinion, a fresh exercise for determination of fair rent or standard rent has to be undertaken as per the applicable statutory provision. We accordingly set aside the judgment of the learned First Court as well as the statutory authorities and remand the matter to the competent authority for determination of fair rent afresh in terms of the applicable law. We, at the same time, find the monthly rent of Rs.38 per month which the appellant is depositing now to be absurdly low. Having considered Mr. Singh’s suggestion, we direct the appellant to pay Rs. 2 lakhs as lump-sum payment within a period of six weeks from today. Till final determination is made by the competent authority of fair rent of the premises in question, the appellant shall also continue to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- per month commencing from the month of November, 2018. Such lump-sum and monthly payment, it is made clear, shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and shall be appropriately adjusted upon final determination of the dispute by the competent authority. 7. The aforesaid sum of Rs. Such lump-sum and monthly payment, it is made clear, shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and shall be appropriately adjusted upon final determination of the dispute by the competent authority. 7. The aforesaid sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs shall be deposited with the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ranchi hearing Eviction Suit No. 8 of 2007 with the condition that on deposit, the learned Court below shall release the said sum immediately to respondent no. 5. Similarly, the said sum of Rs.2000/- per month shall also be deposited with the learned Court below within the 7th day of each month commencing from 7th November, 2018 till the question of fair rent or standard rent is finally determined, and on deposit thereof in each month, the said sum shall be released to the respondent-landlord. 8. This appeal is allowed in the above terms. Connected application (I.A. No. 2000 of 2017) shall also stand disposed of, as we have allowed the main appeal. 9. There shall be no order as to costs.