IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7578 of 2006 1. SRI RATAN LAL JALAN, S/O- LATE NAND LAL JALAN. 2. SURAJ KUMAR, S/O- SRI BATORAM MANDAL. 3. BINOD KUMAR MANDAL, S/O- LATE RAMJI MANDAL. 4. SUDHIR THAKUR, S/O- LATE PYARE LAL THAKUR. 5. SUBODH KUMAR DAS, S/O- LATE BANARSI DAS. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF LALIT NARAYAN MISHRA MARKET, NEELAM ROAD, P.S. KOTWALI, TOWN & DISTRICT- MUNGER :-- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COMMISSIONER-CUM- SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR. 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DISTRICT- MUNGER. 3. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MUNICIPALITY, MUNGER :--RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3. 19.04.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State, Munger Municipality, who is praying for time but considering the fact that copy of the petition was served on the counsel for the Municipality as far back on 12.6.2006 and adjournment was allowed under orders dated 11.07.2006, I am not inclined to grant any further time and proceed to dispose of the matter. 2. Petitioners are the tenants of the Munger Municipality as they have been allotted shop in Lalit Narayan Mishra Marketing Complex situate in the town of Munger. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that earlier petitioners were conducting their business in the shop let 2 out by the Municipality from which they were asked to vacate so as to enable the Municipality to raise a marketing complex after demolishing the earlier building. After the petitioners vacated the shop the authorities demolished the old building and raised the marketing complex but the same has not yet been completed as the structure on the first floor of the building has not yet been provided with roof. The shops in the ground floor are also lacking in amenities like drain, shutter and other facilities. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that after the structure (shops) in the ground floor was raised the authorities of the Municipality forced the petitioners to occupy the same, failing which threatened with cancellation of the allotment. In the light of the threat to cancel the allotment petitioners occupied the shop premises in the ground floor without plaster, shutters and drain. Having occupied the shops petitioners began to pay monthly rent of Rs. 400/- per month for each of their shop. By the impugned 3 order dated 18.04.2006, Annexure-10 the rent of the shop has been revised to Rs. 800/- per month payable with effect from 01.04.2006. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that as the shop has not yet been completed the direction of the Municipality to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month is too excessive and arbitrary. 3. Counsel for the Municipality has opposed the prayer made in the writ petition and submits that petitioners having occupied the shop premises and the authorities having revised the rent from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 800/- under the impugned notice dated 18.04.2006, Annexure-10 and 11 this Court should direct them to pay the revised rent from 01.04.2006 as the Municipality is about to complete the marketing complex as per the sanctioned plan in all respect very soon. 4. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of the view that until the marketing complex is not completed in all respect as per the sanctioned plan 4 petitioners should pay the rent at the old rate i.e. Rs. 400/- per month for each of their shop but no sooner the shops are completed, it is undertaken on their behalf by the counsel that the rent shall be revised by them to Rs. 800/- per month, failing which the authorities of the Municipality shall be at liberty to evict the petitioners from the marketing complex in accordance with law. In the light of the operative portion of this order, impugned notice dated 18.04.2006, Annexure-10 and 11 is quashed. 5. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)