CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. vs State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and Others

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 19 July 2006 · Citation: (2006) 4 JCR 217

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ramesh Kumar Merathia, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.W.J.C. No. 2939 of 1997 (R)
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 358 words

Ramesh Kumar Merathia, J.—This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 9.3.1987 passed by respondent No. 4 in B.B.C. Case No. 40 of 1986 (Annexure 1) determining fair rent of the premises in question at the rate of Rs. 2.75 paise per sq. ft. totaling Rs. 10,681/- per month and also for quashing the order dated 29.10.1988 passed by respondent No. 3 in House Rent Appeal No. 21 R 15 of 1987-88 (Annexure 2) dismissing the petitioner''s appeal and also for quashing the order dated 16.1.1997 passed by respondent No. 2 in H.R.C. Revision No. 1 of 1989 (Annexure 3) confirming the said order.

2.

Respondent No. 5 filed a petition u/s 5 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (for short "the Act") for fixation of fair rent. The House Rent Controller (respondent No. 4) after considering the entire matter and after hearing the parties, fixed Rs. 2.75 paise per square feet (Rs. 10,681/- per month for a total area of 3884 square feet), payable from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 20.5.1986. Petitioner filed appeal. Inspite of the orders passed by the appellate authority to deposit the fair rent fixed by respondent No. 4, the petitioner did not deposit the fair rent. On 29.10.1988, the said appeal was dismissed. The premises was vacated on 30.9.1989. The revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed.

The rent was fixed by respondent No. 4 after considering the relevant aspects in accordance with law. He has, inter alia, taken into consideration the prevailing rates of rent in the locality for similar accommodation. No ground has been made out by the petitioner for interference with the order passed on the findings of fact. In the cases of Saraswati Devi v. Commissioner 1996 (1) PLJR 924 and Rajendra Behl Vs. Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division and Others, , the enhancement of rent beyond 25% was upheld. The respondent has not received the fair rent fixed for twenty years.

3.

In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to pay the difference of rent as ordered by the Commissioner. No costs.