IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22876 of 2011 Dilip Kumar Singh Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- 02. 22.12.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the leaned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State of Bihar. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff- petitioner against the order dated 08.11.2011 passed by Sub Judge VI, Vaishali at Hajipur in eviction case No.1 of 2006 whereby the learned Court below directed to deposit arrears and current rent at the rate of Rs.83.22/- fixed by the Civil surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer. It appears that the plaintiff-petitioner filed eviction suit No.1 of 2006 for eviction of the respondents from the suit premises on the ground of default and personal necessity. In the said suit, the respondents appeared and filed contesting written statement then the petitioner filed application under Section 15 of the Bihar Building (Lese, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 praying for directing the respondents to pay arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.900/- per month fixed by the house controller under the B.B.C. Act which was fixed prior to institution of the suit by terms of order dated 24.01.1997 as contained in - 2 - Annexure ‘6’. The respondents filed objection stating that they have no knowledge about the fixation of fare rent by the controller. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below directed the respondents to pay the arrears of rent at the rate of RS.83.22/- on the ground that the respondents have filed appeal against the order passed by house controller dated 24.01.1997. It appears that the respondents have filed the appeal before the Addl. Collector in the year 2011 challenging the order of the house controller which has been passed in the year 1997. It is admitted fact that after induction, the respondents have never paid the rent to the plaintiff. There is no provision in the B.B.C. Act that the rent is to be fixed by a defendant and the Court shall direct the tenant to deposit rent fixed by the tenant. Here, in the present case from perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Court below directed the respondent to pay the rent fixed by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medicinal Officer who is defendant tenant under the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff which is admitted by the respondent that the suit premises was given in rent for running health centre at Bidupur and the health centre is running by the respondent till today. The rent at the rate of - 3 - Rs.900/- per month has been fixed by the house controller. Only the dispute is that the respondents have filed appeal. It appears that as stated above, the appeal has been filed in the year 2011, i.e. after expiry of more than 12 years from the date of passing of the order. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the learned Court below has exercised the jurisdiction in the manner not permitted by law and thereby occasioned a failure of justice. In such view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to pay the arrears of rent admissible under the law at the rate of Rs.900/- per month within one month from today in the Court below and go on depositing current and future rent from the month of January 2012 within 15 of February, 2012 and so on and so forth till the disposal of the eviction suit. If the amount is deposited by the State of Bihar, the petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the same from the Court below. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the writ application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. A copy of this order be given to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)