IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7749 of 2006 1. Deputy Director Of Agriculture (Seed Analysis), Bihar, Patna through Sri Manoj Kumar Verma, Deputy Director of Agriculture (Seed Analysis), Bihar, Patna 2. Assistant Seed Testing Officer, Seed Testing Laboratory, Laheriyasarai through Sri Govind Prasad Trivedi … Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga 2. Collector, Darbhanga 3. Subdivisional Officer-cum- House Controller, Sadar, Darbhanga 4. Satish Chandra Jha, son of Sri Laxmikant Jha, resident of Mohalla Kabilpur, P.S. Laheriyasarai, District Darbhanga … Respondents ----------- For the Petitioners :Mr. Mukesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate For the State :Mr. Raghvendra Kumar Singh, A.C. to G.A.-3 03/ 29.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. Assistant Seed Testing Officer, Seed Testing Laboratory, Laheriyasarai- petitioner no.2 is the tenant of the premises in question measuring 936 square feet comprising of 5 rooms, verandah, 2 lavatories/ wash room. Petitioner no.2 applied for fixation of fair rent of the aforesaid premises. Under order dated 6.2.2001 passed in House Controller Case No. 26 of 2000, Annexure-1, the Controller taking into account the built up area and the construction available at the disposal of the tenant including the agreement entered into by and between the tenant and the landlord fixed the rent of the premises in question under 2 order dated 6.2.2001. Against the order dated 6.2.2001, petitioners filed appeal which was dismissed under order dated 29.6.2001 passed in Rent Control Appeal No. 4 of 2001-02, Annexure-2. Against the order fixing the fair rent as also the appellate order, the tenant preferred Revision Case No. 18 of 2002-03, which was also dismissed under order dated 23.3.2005, Annexure-3. 3. By filing the present writ petition on 5.7.2006 the tenant- petitioner no.2 and his controlling officer, petitioner no.1 has assailed orders dated 6.2.2001, 29.6.2001 and 23.3.2005, Annexures-1,2 and 3 to this application on the ground that the order of the Rent Controller dated 6.2.2001, Annexure-1 is wholly without jurisdiction, as while fixing the fair rent under the said order, the Rent Controller has relied on the agreement executed by and between the tenant and the landlord. In this connection, it is submitted that placing reliance on the agreement for the purposes of fixing the fair rent is contrary to the mandate of Section 4 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which, inter alia, provides that while fixing rent of the tenanted premises, it shall not be lawful for any landlord to increase 3 or claim any increase in the rent which is payable for the time being on the basis of agreement signed by and between the tenant and the landlord. 4. While fixing the rent of the tenanted premises, the Controller having taken note the area of the tenanted premises as also the rooms and lavatories available in the tenanted premises has fixed the fair rent of the premises in question. While fixing the fair rent of the premises in question, the Controller has also referred to the agreement executed by and between the tenant and the landlord. Section 4 of the Act provides that it shall not be lawful for the landlord to claim enhancement of rent of the tenanted premises on the basis of the agreement executed by and between the tenant and the landlord. In the instant case, request for fixing the fair rent of the tenanted premises was initiated at the instance of petitioner no.2, who himself produced the agreement, as from the order of the House Controller, it does not appear that the agreement was produced by the landlord. The House Controller having received the request of petitioner no.2 as also the agreement, did not proceed to fix the rent of the tenanted premises on the basis of the agreement. He called for a report about the 4 area of the tenanted premises and the accommodation available therein and relying on the report relating to the area let out as also the space available, including the number of rooms and the lavatories, passed the order fixing the rent. True it is that while doing so, he has also relied on the agreement executed by and between the tenant and the landlord. The landlord neither produced the agreement nor claimed increase of rent on the basis of the agreement, in my opinion, the Controller while placing reliance over the agreement, does not appear to have infracted Section 4 of the Act. 5. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality in the orders dated 6.2.2001, 29.6.2001 and 23.3.2005, Annexures- 1,2 and 3 to this application. Besides, the writ petition having been filed after more than 1 ½ years of the passing of the revisional order, the same is also fit to be dismissed on the ground of laches on the part of the tenant- petitioners. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Arjun/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)