IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5482 of 2004 ARJUN PRASAD NAYAK @ ARJUN NAYAK SON OF LATE RAM RATAN NAYAK, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- LOK NATHPUR, GANJ ROAD, WARD NO.4 DALSINGSARAI, P.S. DALSINGSARAI, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR --- PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER, DARBHANGA DIVISION, DARBHANGA. 3. THE COLLECTOR, SAMASTIPUR. 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DALSINGSARAI, SAMASTIPUR. 5. LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK, DALSINGSARAI, P.S. DALSINGSARAI, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER. -------RESPONDENTS. ----------- 7/ 29-03-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader No.15, appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 to 4. However, despite appearance and filing of a counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent no.5, nobody has appeared to oppose the prayer made in the present writ petition. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the validity and legality of order dated 12.01.2004 (Annexure-5), passed in Revision Case No. 41 of 2003-04 by respondent- Commissioner under the provisions of Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (in short ‘the Act’). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being the landlord under the meaning 2 of the Act, had inducted respondent no.5- Land Development Bank, Dalsingsarai as his tenant on the rent fixed at the relevant time. Subsequently, the petitioner claims to have filed a petition under section 5 of the Act for determination of fair rent of the building of the petitioner under the occupation of respondent no.5, whereafter House Control Case No. 3 of 1998 was initiated by respondent-S.D.O.-cum- House Controller, Dalsingsarai. It is further pleaded that after hearing the parties, respondent- House Controller by his order dated 18.05.1999 (Annexure-1), fixed the fair rent @ Rs. 2,000/- per month for the building in question belonging to the petitioner. 4. Respondent no.5, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 18.05.1999 (Annexure-1), preferred House Control Appeal Case No. 487 of 1999 before respondent- District Collector, Samastipur under the provision of section 24 of the Act, but that appeal was finally rejected by order dated 29.03.2003 (Annexure-3). 5. Grievance of the petitioner is that respondent no.5, thereafter, preferred Revision Case No. 41 of 2003-04 before respondent- Divisional Commissioner under the provisions of Section 26 of the Act and aforesaid revision case filed by respondent no.5 has been allowed by the impugned order dated 12.01.2004 (Annexure-5), without 3 giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is in complete violation of principles of natural justice. It is further contended that the period of limitation for filing such a revision has been prescribed for 15 days under the provisions of Rule 7 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1983, but the aforesaid revision was filed after expiry of the period of limitation. The revisional authority, without condoning the delay, by a cryptic and non-speaking order has allowed the aforesaid revision application by the impugned order dated 12.02.2004 (Annexure-5), remitting the matter to the appellate authority. 6. Though a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.5, but it has no where been stated that in the light of the impugned order dated 12.01.2004 appeal has been decided afresh by the appellate authority. Only averment has been made that respondent no.5 has vacated the building in question on 31.08.1999 and notice has been issued to the petitioner by the appellate authority. In fact, by an order dated 30.11.2006 passed in the present proceeding by a Bench of this Court operation of the impugned order dated 12.01.2004 (Annexure-5) was stayed. 7. It is true that normally an order of remand should not be interfered with by this Court, but if the 4 issues involved go to the root of the matter then in that special circumstances, even the order of remand can be interfered with by this Court. In the present case entire order sheet of the revision case has been brought on record, as Annexure-4, from perusal of which it is apparent that though the revision case was barred by limitation, but limitation has never been condoned by the revisional authority. From the order-sheet, vide Annexure-4, it further appears that at no point of time even notices were ordered to be issued to the petitioner, being the landlord of the premises in question in whose favour original and appellate orders were passed by the competent authorities. On perusal of the impugned order, it is further apparent that by a most cryptic order, running into four lines, the revision filed by respondent no.5 has been allowed by the respondent- Divisional Commissioner, which cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The revisional authority was legally obliged to consider the case of the parties on merits and only thereafter, he could have passed the final order. 8. After hearing the parties and on consideration of the materials available on record, as also for the reason recorded above, the impugned order dated 12.01.2004 (Annexure-5) is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the revisional authority for deciding the revision case filed by respondent no.5 on merit afresh, after giving an 5 opportunity of hearing to all concerned, including the petitioner. It is hoped that the revisional authority shall make endeavour to dispose of the matter within a reasonable time, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the present order. 9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the present writ petition stands allowed. No costs. BTiwary/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)