JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. A.K Das, counsel appearing for the petitioner assisted by Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate. 2. Heard Mr. Ashish Kr. Thakur, Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 3. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.07.2007 (Annexure-4) passed in H.R.C Revision Case Nos. 78/2000, 79/2000, 87/2000 and 88/2000 passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division at Ranchi (respondent no. 2) whereby and whereunder the said Revisional Authority has been pleased to set aside the order dated 22.2.2000 passed by the appellate authority namely the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum East at Jamshedpur (respondent no.3) in H.R.C. Appeals. 4. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the respondent no.5 to pay the rent of the tenanted premises at least at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. ft. from the date of filing of the initial application under Section 5 of the Jharkhand Building (Lease Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2000. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submits as under:- (a) The petitioner being the landlord had filed application for fixation of fair rent in connection with shop no.3 and Shop no. 3A situated at ground floor of Milkiram Market, Hem Singh Bagan Area, Kalimati Road, Sakshi. (b) The premises are commercial premises and the initial rent of each shop was Rs. 350/- per month. (c) The application for fixation of fair rent was filed in the year 1999 and the authority concerned called for a report which was submitted vide report dated 15.01.1999 (Annexure-1) whereby the authority has recommended for fixation of fair rent @ Rs. 7/- per Sq. ft. (d) Petitioner as well as private respondent filed objection to the report and the House Rent Controller-cum-S.D.M Dalbhum, (respondent no.4) fixed the fair rent at Rs. 8/- per sq. ft. vide orders dated 19.06.1999. (e) Against this both the parties, i.e. petitioner as well as the respondents filed appeal before the appellate authority which were dismissed and the order dated 19.06.1999 was affirmed. Since there were two shops, four appeals arose out of the order dated 19.6.1999. (f) Thereafter, both the parties filed revision petition before the Revisional Authority being Revision Case Nos. 78, 79, 87 and 88 of 2000 which was disposed of by the common order dated 26.07.2007 by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division at Ranchi (respondent no.2) contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition. 6. (f) Thereafter, both the parties filed revision petition before the Revisional Authority being Revision Case Nos. 78, 79, 87 and 88 of 2000 which was disposed of by the common order dated 26.07.2007 by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division at Ranchi (respondent no.2) contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is perverse and a piece of complete non-application of judicial mind in as much as the said authority has remanded the matter for fresh consideration by recording that since both the parties are aggrieved by the fixation of fair rent, therefore, the matter should be remanded to the original authority for fresh consideration. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that even the mandate of Section 16 of Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2000 regarding the payment of rent to the landlord has not been followed and he further submits that the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court reported in 2003 (3) JLJR 527 has not been properly considered by the authority. The counsel referred to para 15 of the said judgment which reads as follows:- “We may at this stage indicate that a section placing a restriction on the right to receive rent as fair rent, has to be understood in the context of the decision of the Supreme Court in Malpe Vishwanath Acharya Vs. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1998 SC 602 ), wherein, it was held that the provision pegging the standard rent down to the rent paid on a particular date or the first rent paid for the premises let out after that date, had to be held to be unreasonable and unconstitutional. To the same effect is the decision of the Kerala High Court in Issac Ninan vs. The State of Kerala (ILR 1996 (3) Kerala 1), the petition for Special Leave to Appeal against which was dismissed by the Supreme Court. It may not therefore be permissible to peg down the fair rent to the contract rent actually received by the landlord for the building plus an increase of up to 25% and taking into account the subsequent repairs. It may not therefore be permissible to peg down the fair rent to the contract rent actually received by the landlord for the building plus an increase of up to 25% and taking into account the subsequent repairs. In fairness to the counsel for the tenant, we must notice that the he also did not argue that the fair rent in an application by the landlord could only be the contract rent, plus upto 25% plus something more in lieu of repairs. The argument proceeded on the basis that the average rent that would have been fetched for similar building in the locality for the relevant period, must be taken not of. His objection was to the Rent Controller taking note of the general increase in cost of site and the building construction in the case of a building that came into existence prior to 1.12.1980.” 7. Counsel for the private respondent is absent in spite of service of notice. 8. Counsel for the States submits that the impugned order is in accordance with law. 9. After hearing the counsel for the parties and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 26.07.2007 passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division at Ranchi (respondent no.2) is fit to be set aside and the matter is fit to be remanded to the said authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law on account of following reasons:- a. The impugned order appears to be a piece of complete non-application of judicial mind. b. The authority below was not justified in remanding the matter back to original authority by holding that since both the parties are aggrieved by the order of fixation of fair rent , so the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration. c. The revisional authority has not properly considered the judgment reported in reported in 2003 (3) JLJR 527 . d. The respondent no.2 has further not properly followed the mandate of Section 16 of Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2000. e. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case the matter is remanded back to the respondent no.2 for passing fresh order after hearing to the parties in accordance with law and considering the mandate of the various decisions as may be cited by the parties. e. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case the matter is remanded back to the respondent no.2 for passing fresh order after hearing to the parties in accordance with law and considering the mandate of the various decisions as may be cited by the parties. f. Accordingly the impugned order dated 26.07.2007 passed in Revision Case no. 78/2000, 79/2000, 87/2000 and 88/2000 as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition is hereby set-aside and the matter is remitted to the court of Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division at Ranchi for passing a fresh reasoned order after hearing the parties in accordance with law within a period of six months after considering the materials available on record as well as the various pronouncement which may be filed before the said authority. The petitioner undertakes and is accordingly directed to appear before the said authority i.e respondent no.2 in the last week of February, 2018. 10. The writ petition is allowed with aforesaid observations and directions.