Jharkhand High Court
Vijay Prasad vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 16 September, 2010
Author: R. K. Merathia
Bench: R. K. Merathia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (C) No. 4863 of 2007
with
W.P. (C) No. 2557 of 2010
---
W. P. (C) No. 4863 of 2007:
Azad Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Vijay Prasad ... ... Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 2557 of 2010:
Vijay Prasad ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Azad Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. K. MERATHIA
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajan Raj, Advocate
(in W.P.C. No. 4863 of 2007)
: Mr. Gautam Rakesh, Advocate
(in W.P.C. No. 2557 of 2010)
For the Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate
(in W.P.C. No. 4863 of 2007)
---
5. 16.09.2010: W.P.C. 4863 of 2007 has been filed by the tenant against the order dated 17.7.2007 passed in H.R.C. Revision No. 65 of 2007 admitting the revision and directing him to deposit the up to date arrears of fair rent fixed by House Rent Controller.
2. W.P.(C) No. 2557 of 2010 has been filed by the landlord for direction to dispose of the said revision at an early date.
3. Mr. Rajan Raj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/tenant, in W.P.C. No. 4863 of 2007 submitted that the impugned order was passed in the absence of the landlord whereas as per Section 16 (2) of the Bihar Building (Lease Rent) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'BBC Act'), an opportunity of hearing was to be given to the landlord before passing such order. He further submitted that a petition was filed on 13.4.2002 by the landlord under Section 5 of the BBC Act for fixing fair rent before the House Rent Controller (HRC). In the fair rent proceeding, stand of the landlord was that the agreed rent was Rs. 4,000/- (Rs. four thousand only) per
-2 month whereas in the suit filed thereafter it was claimed that agreed rent was Rs. 3,000/- (Rs. three thousand only) per month. It is further submitted that as per the decree passed in the suit confirmed by the appellate court, the rent payable was Rs. 1,000/-(Rs. one thousand only) per month. He lastly submitted that the tenant has handed over the vacant possession of the premises on 23.11.2007
4. On the other hand, counsel for the landlord-Vijay Prasad referred to the following portion of the judgment of the trial court:
"I have been informed that the case of rent fixation is still pending before the H.R.C. and the plaintiff will be at liberty to claim enhanced rate if the H.R.C. find that the rate of rent should be higher. Accordingly, I find and hold that rate of rent is Rs. 1,000/- per month as admitted by the defendant. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant."
5. As noticed above, no clear finding was given by the trial court with regard to the monthly rent as the case for fixation of fair rent was pending decision before H.R.C.
6. The alleged contradictory stand of the landlord about the quantum of rent in HRC case and the suit is not of much relevance in these writ petitions. The fair rent is to be fixed by the concerned authorities on taking into consideration different aspects of the matter and not only the amount of rent admitted or disputed by the parties. Fixation of fair rent is altogether an independent proceeding.
7. Further, the submission of Mr. Rajan Raj that the impugned order was passed in the absence of the landlord is baseless, as the tenant cannot raise such complaint. If the order would have been passed against the landlord, he could raise the grievance that it was passed in violation of Section 16(2) of the BBC Act without giving opportunity of hearing to him.
8. In the circumstances, I find no merit in the writ petition W.P.C. No. 4863 which is accordingly dismissed.
The tenant - Azad Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh is directed to comply with the order dated 17.7.2007 within two weeks from today. The parties will appear before the Revisional Court at 11:00 A.M. on 27.09.2010 when the Revisional Court will fix date(s). The parties are directed to cooperate in early disposal of the revision. The Revisional Court will dispose of the revision application in accordance with law as early as possible and preferably within three months thereafter.
-3-In view of this order no separate order is required to be passed in W.P.C. No. 2557 of 2010.
With these observations and directions, these writ petitions are disposed of.
(R. K. Merathia, J.) R. Shekhar Cp 2