JUDGMENT : 1. Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of the land measuring an area of 80 decimals, appertaining to R.S. Plot No. 420 of Khata No. 02 situated at Village Ormanjhi, Gangutoli, P.S. Ormanjhi, Thana No. 61, District Ranchi. 2. The Ranchi District Dairy Development Co-operative Society (Respondent-5) is a society registered under the Jharkhand Co-operative Societies Act and had approached the petitioner to give the said land on lease for a period of 30 years from 30 th July, 2009 on an annual rent of Rs. 1,80,000/- for the purpose of producing milk and milk products and to install certain machines in the lease hold premises to which the petitioner agreed. 3. Thereafter registered lease deed dated 31.07.2009 was executed by the petitioner in favour of the 5 th respondent for the said period of 30 years w.e.f. 30 th July, 2009 on an annual rent of Rs. 1,80,000/-, subject to enhancement of rent on every five years. 4. According to the petitioner, as per the clauses to the lease agreement, the 5 th respondent installed the machinery etc. in the lease hold premises and had been using the same but stopped paying the contractual rent since August, 2014 and have also not enhanced the rent. 5. Petitioner contended that he approached the respondents with several requests and reminders to pay the arrears of rent as well as the enhanced rent arrears, but they did not pay the same. He contends that the action of the respondents of withholding payment of rent legally payable to him under the lease agreement is arbitrary and unconstitutional. He prays for a direction in the writ petition to 5 th respondent to pay the petitioner arrears of rent since August, 2014 which have not been paid along with arrears of enhanced rent. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3, 4 and 7 by the Circle Officer, Ormanjhi, it is admitted that the rent of the Dairy Firm of Ormanjhi being operated from the land owned by the petitioner, has been enhanced from annual rent of Rs.1,80,000/- to Rs. 2,44,405/- under Section 11 of Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 by the House Controller-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Ranchi and the same was also communicated to the Additional Collector, Ranchi on 09.09.2016. 7. This is not disputed by the counsel of the 5 th respondent. 8. 2,44,405/- under Section 11 of Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 by the House Controller-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Ranchi and the same was also communicated to the Additional Collector, Ranchi on 09.09.2016. 7. This is not disputed by the counsel of the 5 th respondent. 8. In the counter affidavit filed by the 5 th respondent, it is admitted at paragraph-16 that the dairy was inaugurated in 2007 after construction of the building and that the said building was constructed in the petitioner’s land even before the lease deed was executed. It is also not disputed in the counter affidavit of the 5 th respondent that the registered lease deed dt. 31.07.2009 was executed as contended by the petitioner on the terms as mentioned by the petitioner. He also has not disputed that as per the terms of the lease deed, there was to be an increase in the lease rental every 5 years. 9. It is, however, contended by the counsel for 5 th respondent that the petitioner used to buy milk from the said dairy established by the 6 th respondent for his own dairy but he was not paying the 6 th respondent the price of the milk and that a sum of Rs. 23,27,373.43 is payable by the petitioner to the 6 th respondent. It is also stated that the said 6 th respondent had filed a civil suit being Original Suit No. 740 of 2017 for recovery of the said amount against the petitioner which is pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ranchi. 10. Admittedly, the 6 th respondent is not a party to the lease agreement between the parties; and any dispute which the 6 th respondent may have with petitioner needs to be adjudicated in the said suit pending in the said court; and on the pretext of the petitioner being allegedly liable to the 6 th respondent for the said amount claimed in the suit, it is not open to the 5 th respondent to refuse to pay the rent as agreed in the registered lease deed dt. 31 st July, 2009. There is thus no valid defence available to 5 th respondent for not paying rent/enhanced rent to petitioner and its conduct is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and Article 300A of the Constitution of India. 11. 31 st July, 2009. There is thus no valid defence available to 5 th respondent for not paying rent/enhanced rent to petitioner and its conduct is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and Article 300A of the Constitution of India. 11. In view of the statement in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 3, 4 and 7 that there was an increase in rent from Rs.1,80,000/- for the period after 31.07.2014 to Rs. 2,44,405/-, the 5 th respondent is directed to pay from August, 2014 rent at the rate of Rs. 2,44,405/- per annum upto 31 st July, 2019 and even thereafter till date, with interest @ 9% p.a. from dates on which the annual rent is payable till actual date of payment, which shall be received by the petitioner without prejudice to his right to claim higher rent after getting it decided in an appropriate forum. The said payment is directed to be made by 5 th respondent within three months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order by the 5 th respondent. 12. The 5 th respondent shall also pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.