IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6710 of 2003 1. BIJOY KUMAR PODDAR son of late Chouthmal Poddar 2. Pradeep Kumar Poddar, son of late Chauthmal Poddar 3. Ramaeshwari Devi Poddar, wife of late Chauthmal Poddar. 4. Chandar Poddar, son of late Satish Kumar Poddar( grand son of late Cyhauthmal Poddar). 5. Anil Kumar Poddar, son oflate Satish Kumar Poddar(grand son of late Chauthmal Poddar). 6. Dropadi Devi Sharaf 7. Prema Madhojania Both daughters of late Chauthmal Poddar. All resident of Mouhalla Amla Tola Katihar, p.S. and District-Katihar…. Peteitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Commissioner, Purnia Division, Purnia 3. The Collector, katihar 4. Housae Controller, Katihar 5. Hans Raj Batra, son of late Pindi Lal Batra, resident of Mohalla Amla tola, Katihar, P.S. and District- Katihar….. Respondents. ------ For the petitioners: Mr. Ashuthosh Ranjan Pandey, Advocate Mr. Dhaneshwar Prasad Gupta, Advocate Mr. Anshuman,Advocate Mr. Ramanuj Tiwary, Advocate For Respondent No.5: Mr. S.K.Das, Advocate Miss Ratna Das, Advocate For the State: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma,A.C. to A.A.G.III ----- 5. 29.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners seek quashing of part of the order dated 27.7.2002 passed by the Commissioner, Purnia Division, Purnia, by which he has modified the order dated 21.9.1996 passed by the House Controller while directing that the fair - 2 - rent at the rate of Rs.900/- per month shall be payable from 27.7.2002 instead of 15.9.1987 as directed by the House Controller. The petitioner on 15.9.1987 filed an application under Section 5 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent And Eviction) Control Act, 1982 being House Control Case No. 40 of 1981 for fixation of fair rent of a shop room in the main market area of Katihar town having an area of 285 sq.ft. With respect to the said shop the fair rent was initially fixed by order dated 8.9.1988 at Rs.514/- per month with effect from 15.9.1987 but the same was reduced on appeal by order dated 23.8.1993 passed by the Collector, Katihar at Rs.475/- per month, against which the petitioner preferred a revision before the Commissioner, who by order dated 14.7.1995 set aside the order dated 23.8.1993 of the Collector and the matter was remanded to the original authority for personal enquiry and for fixing the fair rent. Thereafter, again after hearing the parties, the Sub- divisional Officer-cum- House Controller, Katihar by his order dated 21.9.1996 fixed the fair rent of the shop in question at Rs. 900/- per month with effect from 15.9.1987 on the basis of rent - 3 - receipts of neighbourhood premises, agreements etc. which were filed before him. Thereafter, the respondent-tenant filed an appeal being House Control Appeal No.442 of 1996-97 before the Collector, which was dismissed on 22.5.2001. Against the same, respondent No.5 preferred revision before the Commissioner, Purnia Division being House Control Case No.41/2001-02. The Commissioner while not interfering with the fair rent fixed directed that the order of fixation of fair rent will be made effective from the date of passing of the order by him, i.e., 27.7.2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Commissioner has no authority to fix the rent from the date of his order as his only jurisdiction under the revisional power conferred upon him by Section 26 of the B.B.C. Act is to consider as to whether the rent fixed by the House Controller is fair, proper and in accordance with the provisions of law or not. It is urged that the Commissioner has no power to change the date from which the said fair rent becomes payable. In support of the aforesaid stand, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of Shree Bhagwati - 4 - Hosiery Mill Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors: 1998(2) PLJR 328, in the relevant part of paragraph No.2 of which it has been held as follows: “2. We are satisfied after hearing the parties that the order passed by the Commissioner dated 17.10.1995 (Annexure-1) is not strictly in accordance with law, and it would be difficult to sustain the order on legal grounds. The Commissioner was exercising the revisional powers under the relevant Rent Control Act, and, therefore, his jurisdiction was limited to fixing the fair rent payable by the tenant to the landlord. In doing so he had to test the correctness and validity of the orders passed by the Rent Controller and the appellate authority.” Learned counsel for respondent No.5 as also learned counsel for the State support the - 5 - aforesaid order passed by the Commissioner stating that he has given reasons for the same and thus his order complies with the requirement of Section 26 of the Act. It is submitted by them that the Commissioner has considered the hardship caused to the tenant and, therefore, he has ordered to pay the said fair rent from the date of passing of the order by him but at the same time he has not interfered with the amount of fair rent fixed. In the said circumstances, it is urged that the order of the Commissioner is not required to be interfered with. I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsels for the parties. The Commissioner is a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction being a creature of statute, namely, the B.B.C Act. While acting under Section 26 of the Act in a matter arising out of fixation of fair rent, the Commissioner is expected to confine his order with respect to the said aspect of the matter and not to pass an order merely taking into consideration any hardship that may or may not be caused to the tenant or the landlord in such matters and he has to see whether the rent that has been fixed is fair rent or not in accordance with the provisions - 6 - of the B.B.C. Act and the Rules. While exercising his said jurisdiction he has come to the conclusion that the rent of the building in question was proper and justified and maintained the same at Rs.900/-. That having been done, it was not open to the Commissioner to further order that the same shall be applied from the date of order passed by him. It is evident that fixation of a fair rent is the function of the House Controller and the appellate and revisional authorities are merely to consider whether he has done the same in accordance with law or not. The House Controller while fixing the rent has to take into consideration various factors as provided in the Act and Rules. The appellate and revisional authorities can only interfere with the said order if he has not fixed the fair rent after taking into consideration such factors. So far as the House Controller is concerned when an application for fixation of fair rent is filed before him under Section 5 of the B.B.C. Act, while disposing of the same, he has the discretion to fix the fair rent either from the date on which the application was filed or from the date of his order and the said fair rent - 7 - cannot be applied from any other date, which is either before or after these two dates. That being the position, the same constraint would apply to the appellate and the revisional authorities also. If the House Controller has fixed the fair rent from the date of application, at the most the revisional and appellate authorities would be justified in changing the same to the date of passing of the order by the House Controller; they cannot on the ground of hardship of the tenant fix it from any other date. The aforesaid view is also justified for the reason that when the House Controller fixes a fair rent, he takes into account the prevailing rate of rent in the locality at the time of the application or at most at the time when he was passing the order. Thus, his order is based upon materials relating to the fair rent prevailing at the time when he has passed the order. When the appellate and revisional authorities exercise their jurisdiction, they have to keep in mind the said fact that the order of the House Controller is based upon contemporary materials and not upon the materials collected subsequently when the matter has travelled before the appellate or the - 8 - revisional authority. In that view of the matter the fair rent has to be fixed at worst from the date the House Controller passes the order. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, the order dated 27.7.2002 passed by the Commissioner, Purnia Division, Purnia cannot stand. It is, accordingly, quashed. However, considering all aspects of the matter and the fact that the proceedings had remained pending before the House Controller from 1987 till 1996 because of the remand of the order passed on the earlier occasion and ultimately the order was passed by him on 21.9.1996, it is directed that the fair rent fixed by the House Controller shall apply from the date of order of the House Controller, namely, 21.9.1996. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )