JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the order dated 18.11.2016 passed by House Rent Controller cum Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ranchi in JBC Case No.78 of 2016 has been assailed by which the Rent Controller has refused to adjudicate the issue pertaining to fixation of fair rent even in spite of the direction passed by this Court in L.P.A. No.68 of 2015. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the shops have been allotted in their favour since last twenty years and since then they are in possession of the shops in the R.I.T. Building Court compound and are carrying out business on the basis of month to month tenancy. The RRDA at the time of allotment of the shops in question fixed the rent @ Rs.1.50 per sq. ft. in the year 1991 which was enhanced Rs.2.50 per sq. ft. vide memo dated 08.03.1995 and since then the petitioners are making payment @ Rs.2.50 per sq. ft. per month but the rent has been enhanced @ Rs.15 per sq. ft. The petitioners being aggrieved with such enhancement in the monthly rent filed W.P.(C) No.3423 of 2013 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 18.12.2014 by dismissing the writ petition, against which intra Court appeal has been filed being L.P.A No.68 of 2015 and the Division Bench while disposing of the said letters patent appeal on 04.04.2016 directed the Rent Controller to adjudicate upon the fixation of rent with direction to the parties to co-operate with the proceeding, in terms thereof, the Ranchi Regional Development Authority filed a petition on 21.09.2016 as also the petitioners, the Rent Controller has proceeded with the matter and directed to conduct an enquiry in order to get the adjudication of the fair rent but the Rent Controller subsequently refused to adjudicate the issue by passing an order dated 18.11.2016 vide Annexure-10. The present writ petition has been filed against the non-adjudication of the issues by the Rent Controller on the ground that when the Division Bench has passed an order in L.P.A No.68 of 2015, the Rent Controller ought to have adjudicate the fair rent but not doing so the Rent Controller has flouted the order passed by this Court, therefore, the appropriate order may be passed. 3. Mr. 3. Mr. Deepak Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that although the Rent Controller has refused to adjudicate the issue but since the petitioners are raising an issue for fixation of rent of Rs.15/ per sq. ft., the same may be adjudicated by this Court. 4. Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents-RRDA, has submitted that the petitioners, against the enhancement of the rent, has filed a writ petition by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but the same has been rejected against which the intra Court appeal has been filed wherein the rent controller has been directed to adjudicate the issue even considering under the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 where no provision has been made for adjudication for fixation of fair rent so far as it relates to the Government building, if rented, but the intra Court appeal Court with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties and in order to set the dispute at rest, has directed the Rent Controller to adjudicate upon the same but it is the petitioner who has not cooperated with the proceeding before the Rent Controller by making an objection regarding maintainability on the ground that the Rent Controller has no power to adjudicate the dispute involving Government bodies under the provisions of the tenancy Act applicable, therefore, due to non-cooperation of the petitioners, the Rent Controller has dropped the proceeding, hence the petitioners are not entitled to get any relief by this Court having discretionary power. He has also relied upon a judgment of this Court passed in L.P.A. No.127 of 2016 disposed of on 16.01.2018 wherein the Division Bench has been pleased to confirm the order passed by the writ Court in W.P.(C) No.3317 of 2013 by holding therein that the fixation of rent to the tune of Rs.15 per sq. ft. cannot be said to be excessive. He further submitted that in L.P.A. No.127 of 2016 which was subject to the shop in question situated in Daily Market in Ranchi town and herein the shops in question is nearby the Civil Court surroundings and therefore, the respondents-RRDA is not making any difference since the distance in the Daily Market and the shops in question is not far away rather both are in the Ranchi Town, hence Rs.15 per sq. ft. ft. has been fixed for the shops and as such no arbitrariness can be said to have taken by the respondent authority, warranting any interference by this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the rival submissions, the undisputed fact in this case is that the petitioners are in occupation of shops situated in the surrounding area of the Civil Court, Ranchi. The shops in question has been allotted in favour of the petitioners in the year 1991 and at that time the monthly rent fixed was Rs.1.50 per sq. ft., the same was enhanced in the year 1995 to the tune of Rs.2.50 per sq. fit. and subsequently in the year 2004 Rs.3.50 per sq. ft. and vide impugned order the rent has been enhanced is Rs.15 per sq. ft which was subject matter of the W.P.(C) No.3423 of 2013 and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India has declined to interfere with the administrative decision of enhancement of the rent taken by the Ranchi Regional Development Authority, against which intra Court appeal has been filed in L.P.A No.68 of 2015. It would be evident from the order passed by the intra Court appeal that no interference has been shown in the order passed by the writ Court, however, in order to get the matter adjudicated even though the statute does not confer power upon the Rent Controller to adjudicate about fixation of fair rent under the provision of Jharkhand Buildings (Lease Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 but the Division Bench in its discretionary power has directed the Rent Controller to adjudicate the said issue. The parties in compliance to the said order have filed their respective applications before the Rent Controller, upon which, a proceeding has been initiated by making registration of the case being JBC Case No.78 of 2016 which has been impugned. The parties in compliance to the said order have filed their respective applications before the Rent Controller, upon which, a proceeding has been initiated by making registration of the case being JBC Case No.78 of 2016 which has been impugned. The order passed by the Rent Controller, wherein an enquiry has been conducted for 57 days but in course of the proceeding the issue of maintainability has been raised by the petitioners since it has been referred therein that the petitioners were opposite parties, has argued that the petition is not maintainable since Rent Controller has no power to adjudicate the dispute under the provision of Jharkhand Buildings (Lease Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011. However, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it is error on record but the said submission is not acceptable to this Court, since no such statement has been made by him making specific pleading in the writ petition that the observation made by the Rent Controller in order to the effect that the petition is not maintainable, since Rent Controller has no power to adjudicate the dispute involving Government body, this Court by following the principle of strict pleading so far as the instant writ petition is concerned, is not convinced by Mr. Sinha to that effect. 6. Be that as it may, as would appear from the impugned order that the Rent Controller although has proceeded, even when no power conferred by the legislation has been provided upon him to adjudicate upon fixation of fair rent under the Act, 2011 but he has proceeded and further it would be evident that a local enquiry was conducted and it has gone for 57 days but subsequently due to non-cooperation of the petitioners the proceeding has finally been dropped. 7. 7. The petitioners have assailed the aforesaid order by casting aspersion upon the Rent Controller that he has deviated by not following the order in adjudicating the fair rent, the question herein is that the Division Bench of this Court, has passed an order on concession to approach the Rent Controller for adjudication of the issue but the non-cooperation which has been shown by the petitioners as would appear from the oral argument submitted by the petitioners that since the respondents-RRDA has filed a petition which according to the petitioner was contrary to the direction passed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No.68 of 2015 wherein it has been observed at paragraph 4 that the “Letters Patent Appeal along with annexures and further affidavits shall be taken as an application by these petitioners/appellants before the Rent Controller” but according to the petitioners, RRDA has filed separate petition and therefore, the same was not in consonance with the order passed by Division Bench, question herein is, even accepting the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the RRDA has filed a separate petition, the question would be what prejudice has been caused to the petitioners, since the main issue for adjudication was for fixation of fair rent and even if RRDA has filed petition there is no consequence of the same upon fixation of fair rent and therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have shown their non-cooperation in the adjudication of the issues before the Rent Controller and therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. This Court has also gone through the order passed in L.P.A. No.127 of 2016, wherein the issue of enhancement of fair rent to the tune of Rs.15 per sq. ft. was the subject matter which was declined to be interfered with by the writ Court in an order passed in W.P(C) No.3317 of 2013 disposed of on 18.01.2016 and when the same has been questioned before the intra Court appeal, the Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the said appeal has declined to interfere with the quantum of enhancement of fair rent to the tune of Rs.15 per sq. ft. by holding that the enhancement of rent to the tune of Rs.15 per sq. fit cannot be exorbitant. ft. by holding that the enhancement of rent to the tune of Rs.15 per sq. fit cannot be exorbitant. However, learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to distinguish the said judgment by taking a ground that the subject matter of the shops in L.P.A. No.127 of 2016 since situated in the Daily Market in Ranchi town, while the shops in question are in the surroundings area of the Civil Court, Ranchi, therefore, the same cannot be said for Ranchi town and hence the rent as has been fixed for the shops situated in the Daily Market area, cannot be same rent for the shops in the area surroundings with the Civil Court. The same has been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent-RRDA by submitting that the RRDA has taken into consideration the locality and the cost which has incurred in the cost and maintenance and unless appropriate quantum of amount be charged by them then only the shops can be maintained and further according to him there is no difference so far as business aspect is concerned, in comparison to the Daily Market and in the nearby Civil Court area. 8. This Court after having appreciated the aforesaid submission, is of the view that the writ Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is only to interfere in the administrative decision of the respondent authority, if it found to be unfair and suffers from any malice or suffer to the arbitrary action, no such ground has been agitated by the petitioners, save and except that they are in occupation of a meagre area of the shops since 1990 and therefore, such a rent cannot be said to be proper. This Court, therefore, is of the view that Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A No.127 of 2016 has declined to interfere with respect to enhancement of the rent to the tune of Rs.15 per sq. ft. to be collected by the shops of the Daily Market and the shops in question are in the surroundings of the Civil Court which is at the distance of two kilometers and therefore, if any less amount of rent would be fixed from the shops in question, it will lead to discrimination to the shops situated at Daily Market area since both the shops are situated in the Ranchi township. 9. 9. This Court is of the view that this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has got limited jurisdiction to interfere with the administrative decision of the authority in enhancement of the rent and also taking into consideration the submission of the learned counsel for the RRDA, the aspect of the maintenance of the shops that if the rent would not be collected it will be difficult for the authority to maintain it. 10. In view thereof, this Court is of the view that enhancement of rent to the tune of Rs.15 per sq. ft. does not warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly the writ petition fails and is dismissed. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the conditions of the building in question is not so good and at any time any casualty may take place. This Court, in this regard is of the view that since the building is said to have been constructed much prior, as such, it requires maintenance and if it will not be done it may cause any casualty, therefore, the RRDA is directed to look into it and maintain it properly and if any repairing work is required, the same shall be done forthwith. The petitioners are also at liberty to approach before the RRDA authority to bring this fact into their notice for needful. Interim order dated 04.04.2016 passed in L.P.A. No.68 of 2015 stands vacated and the petitioners are directed to pay the rent fixed by the respondent-RRDA and in case of failure of the payment, respondent-RRDA is directed to take decision in accordance with law. Consequently, I.A. No.1462 of 2019 also stands disposed of.