Mohammad Qasim Ali vs Ramesh Kiran and Others

U.N. Sinha and B.N. Jha, JJ.—This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner landlord praying that the order passed by the Commissioner of Chotanagpur Division on the 30th June, 1968 in Dhanbad H. R. C. Revision No. 18 of 1967 be quashed by a writ in the nature of Certiorari or by any other appropriate writ or order.

The relevant facts are as follows : The petitioner had let out a house to respondent No. 1 on a monthly rental of Rs. 50. In February 1962 there was a municipal assessment, by which assessment of a building, comprising of two equal parts was fixed at Rs. 600. The subject matter of this controversy is one of these parts of the building in 1965 the tenant applied to the House Controller for fixation of fair rent, and by order dated the 30th May, 1966, the House Controller fixed the rent at Rs. 30/- per month. The landlord appealed to the appellate authority, and by order dated the 9th December, 1966, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 39.15 paise. Thereafter, the petitioner landlord filed a revision u/s 18B of Bihar Act III of 1947, and by the impugned order the revising authority has reduced the fair rent to Rs. 30 per month again.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of the improvements made by the landlord, enumerated in paragraph 3 of this application, the appellate, authority had rightly increased the rent to Rs. 39.15 paise, and the revising authority should not have reduced the rent to Rs. 30, on the revisional application filed by the landlord. It is contended that if the revisional authority was purporting to act on its own motion, it should have followed the procedure mentioned in Section 19 of the Act and given a formal notice to the landlord, before it could reduce the rent fixed by the appellate authority. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we do not think that any ground has been made out for interference. Section 8(1)(b) of the Act states that the fair rent of a building in respect of which a municipal assessment has been made shall, for each month, be one tenth of the amount of such assessment and the landlord shall not be entitled to recover from the tenant, in addition to the amount, any municipal taxes, taxes or cesses in respect of such building, except in accordance with the provisions of Section 8A. Section 8A, of course, does not apply in this case. Therefore, it is clear that the Commissioner was right in holding that the fair rent of the building in occupation of the present tenant should be Rs. 30/-. If the landlord is of the view that the fair rent should be any higher amount, because of alterations, additions or improvements made by him, he may have the municipal assessment of the. building revised and then take steps u/s 7 of the Act for getting the fair rent redetermined. We think that the reasons given by the Commissioner are quite valid reasons and this does not appear to be a fit case for quashing the order in question.

The application, therefore, fails and it is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order for costs.