IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3172 of 2006 1. ZILA PARISHAD DOOKANDAR SANGH, D.B.Road, Saharsa through its President Chandra Shekhar Singh, S/O Sri Amrendra Nr. Singh, resident of Kaisth Tola, P.S. Saharsa, District- Saharsa. 2. Alok Ranjan Son of Late Pramod Kumar Jha, resident of Bharti Nagar, Ward No. 15 Saharsa, P.S. & District- Saharsa, Secretary of Zila Parisad Dukandar Sangh, D.B. Road, Saharsa. ----------------Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The District Magistrate, Saharsa. 3. The District Board, Saharsa through the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Saharsa. 4. The Chairman, District Board, Saharsa. -----------Respondents. ----------------------- For the Petitioner:- Mahendra Pathak, Advocate For the State:- Mr. Binay Kumar, A.C. to G.P. 13 For the Zila Parishad:- Mr. Anil Vishwakarma, Advocate. ---------------------- 2. 11.02.2011 Learned counsel for the Zila Parishad has filed counter affidavit on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4 which is taken on record. 2. Petitioner is the association of the shopkeepers who have been let out shop by the Saharsa Zila Parishad in its campus. The association and its Secretary is aggrieved by the notice dated 28.12.2005 (Annexure-5) issued to the members of the association enhancing the rent of the shop premises from Rs. 1.80/- per square feet to Rs. 10/8 per square feet. Few of the members of the petitioner 2 association have accepted the revised rent. The other members of the association are disputing the revised rent as according to them the revised rent has been fixed contrary to the terms of the agreement which was signed by the shopkeepers and the Zila Parishad. 3. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the Zila Parishad, I dispose of the writ petition observing that Zila Parishad may proceed against those members of the petitioner association who have not chosen to accept the revised rent by launching proceeding for eviction in accordance with law i.e. under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act, 1982. In the proceeding members of the association shall be at liberty to raise the contention that the revision of the rent under the impugned notice is exorbitant and contrary to the terms of the agreement and they are not bound to accept the revised rent. 4. With the aforesaid observation and direction the writ petition is disposed of. Anand Kr. ( V. N. Sinha, J.)