1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.5527/2009 Sharachndra P. Khatri Vs. The Addl. Collector, Amravati and others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. J. T. Gilda, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. Jaiswal, AGP for respondent no1. Mr. S.P. Deshpande, Adv. for respondents 2 and 3. CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 22nd JUNE 2010. 1] This Court has issued notice for final disposal. The grievance made by Advocate Gilda is contractual rent is found to be insufficient and hence hike has been granted. However, increased rate of Rs. 200/- per month is determined arbitrarily without appreciating the evidence led. His effort is to point out that adjacent premises having similar amenities are drawing more rent. He further points out that application for determination of fair rent under Clause Nos. 5 and 7 of C.P. Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 came to be filed on 8.9.1995 while the fair rent has been fixed from March 2008 only. He, therefore, contended that there is refusal to exercise jurisdiction. 2] Advocate Deshpande for respondents 2 and 3 points out that impugned order of Appellate Authority dated 4th February 2008 was 2 questioned in review, which came to be rejected. He further refers to express language of Rule 7 to urge that order of Rent Controller rejecting the application of landlord is legal and the appellate authority could not have been interfered in the matter. He contends that in such circumstances, this Court should not interfere in writ jurisdiction in the impugned order passed by respondent no.1 3] I have perused the order of the Appellate Authority dated 4th February 2008 with the assistance of respective counsel. It is apparent that evidence has been mentioned but it has not been appreciated and abruptly finding that the rent is being fixed at Rs. 200/- per month has been reached. Similarly, the rent has been made effective from March 2008 most probably because the matter is being decided on 4th February, 2008. However, there are no reasons even for this purpose. 4] The evidence as reproduced shows that adjacent premises are receiving more rent. Relevance of that evidence ought to have been considered in the light of the provisions of Rule 5 and Rule 7 of Rent Control Order and that has not been done. The order, therefore, shows non-application of mind and there is refusal to exercise jurisdiction. The same is accordingly quashed and set aside. Needless to mention that order passed by the Additional Collector in the review proceedings also stands quashed. The proceeding in Appeal No. 40/71(1)/2007-08 Amravati is restored to file of respondent no.1 for taking fresh decision 3 in accordance with law. As the matter is old, said decision be taken as early as possible and in any case by 31st October, 2010. The parties to appear before respondent no. 1 on 17th July, 2010 and to abide by further directions of that Authority. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. JUDGE Ambulkar.