IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5933 of 2001 SITAMARHI UNIT OF BIHAR KHUDARA BIKRETA SANGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 6. 23.1.2009 Heard Mr. N.K.Agrawal, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Miss. Sushimta Mishra, learned counsel for Sitamarhi Municipality. The issue involved in this writ application is very simple. The association of small shopkeepers, who are occupying the premises allotted to them by Sitamarhi Municipality (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Municipality’), have a grievance that since they are the old tenants/ lessees and were paying rent of Rs. 30- 40 per month for the last 20-25 years they should not be subjected to steep enhancement of the rent as has been done by the impugned order passed by the Special Officer of the Municipality on 18.5.1999, as contained in Annexures 1 series. Mr. Agrawal would submit that there is no rationale in the decision of the Municipality in coming out of such steep increase and in fact a sudden increase of more than 5 to 6 times of the rent being 2 paid by the shopkeepers would virtually cripple them in earning their livelihood. Miss. Mishra would point out that whatever rents were fixed for the shopkeepers being represented by the petitioner were way back when the price index was very low but in course of time when the expenditure of the Municipality has increased, its action of augmenting its source of revenue by collection of rent from the lessee shopkeepers is only one of such effort. She has also drawn the attention of this Court towards pending contempt applications wherein paucity/ crunch of fund has been raised by way defence by the municipal authority of Sitamarhi Municipality, even at the risk and peril of punishment for non-compliance of the order of this Court directing the Municipality to pay salary/ wages/ pension to the employees of the Municipality. Mr. Agrawal also does not dispute that if a lessee/ tenant is inducted by any person including Municipality he cannot be subjected to enhancement of rent. He would however submit that such a decision was 3 taken by the Special Officer of the Municipality at a point of time when the Board of Municipal Commissioners had been superceded. He would also point out that practicing uniformity in the matter of fixation and payment of rent can always be the safe criteria of enhancement of rent. In this view while a new tenant can be subjected to a higher rent but an old tenant may not be given the same application/ treatment. The writ jurisdiction of this Court as with regard to price fixation policy is very limited. It will be difficult for this Court to decide as what should be the current rent of particular premises in a particular place. At the same time if any action is arbitrary and thus, violative of Article 14, this Court can definitely come to the rescue of such person while protecting his rights under Article 14 of the Constitution. Such, however, is not the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as if the Municipality had found that the tenants having facility of no roof in their premises or for the vacant space only were paying 4 rent at the rate of 1.50 paise per sq.ft., asking the petitioner who have been provided with a full fledged premises to pay Rs. 3 per sq.ft. may not be either exorbitant much less arbitrary. There seems to be some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Board of the Municipal Commissioner now being in office they are the best judge as they represent the interest of the people including the shopkeepers and therefore, if a fresh decision is taken after considering the interest of the shopkeepers viz-a-viz revenue of the Municipality, that may serve the ends of justice for both. This Court however without expressing any final opinion on the said submission of Mr. Agrawal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, would therefore remit the matter back to the Board of the Municipal Commissioner for taking a firm and final decision as with regard to enhancement/ enforcement of the earlier decision of the Special Officer, as contained in Annexures 1 series to this 5 application. Mr. Agrawal has assured this Court that the petitioner will not question the retrospectivity and would pay whatever reasonable amount is fixed by the Board of the Municipal Commissioner by way of rent both arrears and current from the date on 18.5.1999. It is on this undertaking of Mr. Agrawal that this Court has decided to remit the matter back and it is made clear that whatever rent is now fixed by the Board of Municipal Commissioner of shopkeepers represented by the petitioner must pay it within a period of three months of such decision of the Board of Municipal Commissioner. This application, accordingly, stands disposed of with the aforementioned observation and direction. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/