IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1250 of 2005 Mahesh Thakur, S/o Jagdish Thakur, R/o Village/Mohalla-Chathi Road, Ward No. 20, P.S.-Town(Begusarai), District- Begusarai. …… Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Begusarai-cum-Chairman, Swarn Jayanti Library Pustakalaya, Begusarai. 3. The District Education Officer-Cum-Secretary, Swarn Jayanti Library Pustakalaya, Begusarai (Lessor Ist. Party. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Upadhyaksh, Swarn Jayanti Library Pustakalaya, Begusarai. …….. Respondents. For the petitioner : Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ambastha, AC to AAG-15. For the Respondent nos. 2, 3, and 4: Mr. Chakradhari S.Singh, Sr. Advocate. ----------- 3. 18.01.2011 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent-State of Bihar and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondents to amend the monthly rent for the petitioner’s shop No. 49 which is situated in western part of Sidhighar and fix it at Rs. 4/- per Sq. Feet in stead of Rs. 8/- per sq. feet for the period of lease up to December, 2005 in the light of the order of a Bench of this Court dated 05.02.2003(Annexure-6) passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14059/2001 which was followed by the District Magistrate in his order dated 03.04.2003(Annexure-5) and also for a direction to the respondents to return Rs. 20,000/- which the petitioner had paid as development charge at the time of execution of the Deed of Agreement and also for adjustment of the cost of construction amounting to Rs. 10,000/- in the monthly rent and for other ancillary reliefs. 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the aforesaid order of a Bench of this Court dated 05.02.2003 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14059/2001 as well as the bye-laws (Annexure-1) of the Swarn Jayanti Library specially Clause 4(a) thereof and submits that the rate of rent as well as the development charges fixed in petitioner’s agreement was absolutely illegal and frivolous and the petitioner was fully entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. 4. From the arguments of the parties as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the bye-laws of the Swarn Jayanti Library, Begusarai is of the year 1986 in which the rate of rent for shops was mentioned as Rs. 2.05 per sq. feet. It is also apparent that the rate fixed in 1986 continued for decades and hence, it is apparent from the order of the High Court dated 05.02.2003 (Annwcure-6) that the said rate mentioned in the bye- laws was to be enhanced. In the said circumstances, the claim of the petitioner that the rate fixed in the bye-laws in 1986 has to be continued till date does not stand to raising. 5. So far as the decision of a Bench of this court dated 05.02.2003 passed in CWJC No. 14059 of 2009 is concerned, the said writ case was filed by 18 shopkeepers of the said Swarn Jayanti Library who were tenants since much before and the High Court enhanced the rate from Rs. 4 per sq. feet to Rs. 5/- per sq. feet per month and accordingly the said order was followed by the District Magistrate, Begusarai in his subsequent order dated 3 03.04.2003 with respect to the above mentioned 18 shopkeepers. 6. So far as the instant matter is concerned, the petitioner is a tenant on the basis of Deed of Agreement dated 19.05.2003 (Annwxure-2) between the petitioner and the respondents authorities and as per the agreement itself, the rate of rent was fixed at Rs. 8/- per sq. feet and the security money of Rs. 4,992/- was fixed. So far as the cost of construction Rs. 20,000/- is concerned, it is said to have been paid by the petitioner prior to the said Agreement and it did not even form part of the Agreement. In the said circumstances, the case of the petitioner cannot be equated with the case of those 18 shopkeepers, who had filed CWJC No. 14059 of 2001 as they were tenants from much before and had filed the writ against enhancement of rent, whereas the petitioner had been inducted as tenant much after the aforesaid orders passed by a Bench of this Court and the District Magistrate, Begusarai (Annexure-6 & 5) and the petitioner according to his own free will had entered into agreement with the respondents much thereafter on 19.05.2003 as per the specific terms of the agreement. Furthermore order dated 05.02.2003 was passed by this court in CWJC No. 14059 of 2001 on the express consent of all the parties to that writ case, which is not the position here in this case. 7. In the said circumstances, neither the bye-laws nor the aforesaid order of the High Court in any view of the matter can help the petitioner, who is bound by his own express agreement with the respondents, with respect to the said terms which are 4 clearly binding upon the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sujit (S.N.Hussain,J.)