03/ 12th May 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.283 of 2011 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK THRU ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, DARBHANGA. A BODY CORPORATE, CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION & TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKING)ACT, 1970 HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT 7 BHIKHAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI- 66) HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, AT COMMERCIAL CHOWK, LAHERIASARAI, P.O. & P.S. LAHERIASARAI, DISTT- DARBHANGA…………...…..PETITIONER/APPELLANT. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER, DARBHANGA DIVISION, DARBHANGA. 3. THE COLLECTOR, DARBHANGA DISTRICT, DARBHANGA. 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER-CUM-HOUSE CONTROLLER, SADAR, DARBHANGA. 5. SMT. MEERA DEVI W/O SRI ANIL KUMAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA: BALBHADRAPUR, P.S.- LAHERIASARAI, DISTT-DARBHANGA. ……………………….RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS. ----------- For appellant:- Mr. Mahesh Nr. Parbat, Adv. Mr. Ved Prakash Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Praveen Prabhakar, Adv. For respondent:- Mr. Yugal Kishore, Sr.Adv. ---------- Heard the parties. 2. The writ petition preferred by the appellant- Bank against fixation of fair rent on the request of the respondent-tenant has been dismissed by the impugned order under appeal. 2 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the authorities have not taken into consideration the prevailing rent at the relevant period for enhancing the rent of the premises from Rs.1.88/- per square feet to Rs.4.50/-. We have perused the order of the writ Court which has recorded that the finding of facts recorded by the three authorities that the rent of the premises should be Rs.4.50/- per square feet requires no interference. We have perused the recommendation of the Executive Magistrate who inspected the premises and also the order of the authorities. 4. We are not persuaded to interfere in the rate of rent fixed by the controller and affirmed by the higher authorities. 5. Lastly, it has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that if the writ Court decided to dismiss the writ petition, it should have done so but there was no occasion to impose interest on the amount found due and payable to the landlord @ 9% per annum from the date of the first order. 6. Such order of interest appears to have been passed in larger interest of justice because it was found that premises had been vacated by the Bank on 28/2/2009 and even as on date the differences between the earlier rent and 3 the enhanced rent has not been paid by the Bank to the landlord. In view of such facts, we are of the view that for the present the appellant-bank should be given one opportunity to pay the arrears of rent if already not paid within a period of four months from the date of this order. In case such arrear is not paid within four months, the interest imposed by the writ Court @ 9% per annum on the amount found due from the date of the first order shall be payable by the Bank and the same may be realized by the landlord in accordance with procedure prescribed by the law. 7. With this modification in the order of the writ Court, the appeal is disposed of. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)