IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3838 of 2004 Sri Krishna Prasad Sah son of late Yogendra Sah, resident of village+ P.O. Choraut, P.S. Pupari, District Sitamarhi – Petitioner. Versus 1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Department of Posts and Telegraph, at New Delhi. 2. Director in Chief, Posts and Telegraphs at New Delhi (Delhi). 3. Chief Post Master General Posts and Telegraphs at Patna (Bihar). 4. Postmaster General Posts and Telegraphs at Muzaffarpur(Bihar). 5. Superintendent of Posts and Telegraphs, Sitamarhi(Bihar). 6. Post Master, Sub-Post Office, at + P.O. Choraut, P.S. Pupari, District Sitamarhi – Respondents. ----------- 5/ 01-03-2011 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction upon the respondents to pay Rs. 8,60,392/- ( Rs. Eight lakhs, sixty thousand and three hundred ninety two) towards rent of the premises belonging to the petitioner, which was being used as Sub- Post Office, Choraut in the district of Sitamarhi. According to the petitioner, the house belonging to the petitioner was given on rent to the respondents for running a Sub-Post Office at village Choraut and, in fact, it started working since 15.11.1994. Though the premises remained under the occupation of respondents but rent was neither being fixed nor paid to the petitioner, as a result of which he filed an application under section 5 of Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” in short) before the Subdivisional Officer, 2 Pupri, District Sitamarhi, House Controller, within the meaning of the said Act. On the basis of petition filed by the petitioner, Case No. M/3 of 2002 was registered and notices were issued to the parties by order dated 23.01.2002, directing them to appear on 28.01.2002 for determination of fair rent of the premises in question. The concerned Officers-respondents herein appeared before S.D.O., Pupri, i.e., the Controller within the meaning of the Act. However, no show cause was filed on their behalf despite opportunity given to them. Finally the respondent- S. D. O. passed order on 11.01.2003 (Annexure-3) determining the fair rent of the premises in question @ Rs. 4800/- per month. Despite the aforesaid order payment of rent was not being made to the petitioner, therefore, he filed the present writ petition. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it has been stated that Appeal No. 11 of 2004 along with a petition for condonation of delay has been filed by the respondents before the District Collector in terms of section 24 of the said Act. However, it is admitted case of the parties that neither the appeal is being disposed of nor payment of rent is being made to the petitioner on the ground of pendency of the said appeal. 4. After hearing the parties this Court is of the considered opinion that the appeal filed by respondent 3 no.5 against the order of S.D.O. is required to be disposed of at an earliest possible time. In absence of any order of stay passed by this Court, in fact, respondent- District Collector could have disposed of the appeal by this time. Unfortunately, the matter is still pending. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the District Collector, Sitamarhi- the appellate authority under the meaning of the Act, is hereby directed to dispose of the H.C. Appeal No. 11 of 2004 filed by respondent no.5 on priority basis, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned including the petitioner. 6. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. BTiwary/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)