IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4002 of 2006 1. ABHILASH DAS, Son of Late Krishna Chandra Das, resident of Mohalla- Topkhana Bazar, P.S. Kotwali, P.O. and District- Munger. 2. Omprakash Gupta Son of Sri Ram Prasad Gupta, resident ofMohalla- Bari Bazar, P.S. Kotwali, P.O. and District- Munger. 3. Shyama Nand Jaiswal, Son of Late Tej Narayan Jaiswal, resident of Mohalla- Bari Bazar, P.S. Kotwali, P.O. and District- Munger. . . . . . . Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Controller cum Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, P.S. Kotwali, District- Munger. 3. The Circle Officer, Sadar, P.S. Muffasil, P.O. & District- Munger. 4. Shri Krishna Sewa Sadan Pustakalaya, Munger through its Secretary. 5. The Secretary, Shri Krishna Sewa Sadan Trust Munger, P.S. Kotwali, P.O. & District- Munger. . . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 2/ 23.02.2010 A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners pray for quashing Memo no. 1130 dated 18.11.2005 passed by Rent Controller-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Sadar), Munger, P.S. Kotwali, District- Munger, whereby the fair rent of the premises in question has been enhanced. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order on the ground that the same has been issued in violation of Section 27 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. Section 27 of the Act provides for issuance of notice to landlord and tenant before exercising any of the powers conferred by this Act. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioners were duly noticed in the enquiry and in support of the same, he refers to Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, which is the report of Circle Officer, Sadar, Munger. Learned counsel further submits that there is a provision of appeal under Section 24 and that of Revision under - 2 - Section 26 of the said Act. After hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the petitioners should avail the statutory appeal before the competent authority, who will dispose of the same in accordance with law expeditiously. As the petitioners have contended that no notice was issued prior to the passing of the impugned order, no coercive action would be taken against the petitioners for a period of two months from today to enable them to file an appeal in the statutory provision. In case, such appeal is filed, the authorities would condone the delay, as the petitioners were perusing their remedies before this Court. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)