IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.326 of 2006 MATUK RAM AND COMPANY Versus KRISHNA PRASAD BHADANI WITH C.R. No.1640 of 2006 MATUK RAM & COMPANY Versus KRISHNA PRASAD BHANDARI @ KRIS ----------- 6 3.7.2008 Heard Counsel for the parties. In both the civil revision applications, the submissions on the part of the petitioner that no execution proceeding can be levied for executing an order of the House Controller on the face of the provisions made in the statute cannot be upheld and in the considered opinion of this Court, the Court below has correctly held that an order passed under Section 5 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Act is executable by way of decree of the Court. It is so because Section 23 of the Act clearly lays down that every order passed by the House Controller is a decree and can be executed. The detailed discussions made in the impugned order dated 6.8.2005 placing reliance on an earlier judgment of this Court dated 3rd April, 1995 which has been reported in 1999 (1) PLJR 362, in the considered opinion of this Court lays down correct law and therefore no interference is called for in both the civil revision applications which must be dismissed. At this stage, Counsel for the opposite parties in both the cases have drawn attention of this Court towards the fact - 2 - that despite an order of this Court passed way back in the month of October, 1997 in CWJC No. 12192/1995, the petitioner has not complied the direction given therein and the payment as required to be made towards the rent as per the order of the House Controller has not yet been paid to them. This Court would find that the submissions of the opposite parties is not without substance inasmuch as in the earlier round of litigation, this Court with the consent of the parties had passed the following directions:- “1) District Magistrate, Gaya is directed to get the act of area verified by deputing an Executive Magistrate who shall get the said area measured in presence of the petitioners as well as respondents or their duly appointed representative and after the said area is determined, petitioner shall deposit the rental as fixed by the Commission at the rate of Rs. 1/ per squft. 2) One third of the said rent shall be deposited within a period of two weeks from the fixation of the said area by the District Magistrate and the remaining within a further period of three months on equal installments payable every two weeks. 3) The District Magistrate is directed to get the matter verified and pass a final order regarding area in tenancy of the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/filing of a copy of this order before him either by the petitioners of the respondents.” - 3 - It is not in doubt that pursuant to the aforementioned directions, the measurement of the area was also made through the agency of the District Magistrate and thereafter the petitioners were required to make payment as per the rate of Rs. 1/- per squire feet within the consented time limit fixed by this Court. In that view of the matter, when the petitioners have not complied the consent order of this Court and have not tendered payment of the rent, this Court would direct the Executing Court to take immediate steps for realizing the amount from the petitioners in the pending execution case along with 9% interest. Such interest will be payable from the date of the order passed by the House Controller i.e. 5.9.1988 and till its payment. In other words, the petitioners will be required to pay the rent for the areas under their occupation as found by the Collector at the rate of Rs. 1 per squire feet both for the constructed area as also for the open land from the date of the initial order of the House Controller i.e. 5.9.1988. Such amount of rent will be calculated by the Executing Court with effect from 5.9.1988 at the rate of Rs. 1 per squire feet and on this amount, the petitioners will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 5.9.1988 onwards till the date of its actual payment. The liability of payment of interest is being imposed on the petitioner only to compensate the opposite parties who have been illegally deprived from receiving payment of rent for last - 4 - twenty years despite an undertaking given by the petitioner to this Court in the consent order in CWJC No. 12192 of 1995. With the aforementioned observations and directions, both the Civil Revision Applications are dismissed. Rsh ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)