IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8752 of 2005 BRIJ MOHAN BHAGAT, Son of Pundeo Bhagat, resident of village Mathia, PS Mirganj, District Gopalganj ...........Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Secretary, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna 2. The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Muzaffarpur 3. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Gopalganj .........Respondents ----------- 02- 17/5/2011 Heard Mr. Dhananjay Kumar for the petitioner, and Mr. Devendra Narain Singh, Assistant Counsel to learned AAG VI. The writ petition has been preferred for a direction to the respondent authorities to make payment of the enhanced rent fixed by the Rent Controller by his order dated 308.2001 (Annexure 1). 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner’s house comprising of nine rooms, a latrine, and a godown, situate on the main road of Hathwa More, Mirganj, district Gopalganj. Sometime in 1971, the Minor Irrigation Division of the Govt. of Bihar, took the same on monthly rental of Rs.300/- for the main premises, and Rs.150/- per month for the godown. The office of the Minor Irrigation Division, Gopalganj, is accommodated in the house. In view of refusal on the part of the respondent authorities to enhance the rental, Raj Banshi Bhagat filed an application under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent, and Eviction) Control Act, before the learned Sub-Divisional Officer- cum-Rent Controller, Hathwa, for enhancement of rent. The same was allowed by order dated 30.8.2001 (annexure 3). The text of the order is reproduced hereinbelow:- 2 Þdk;kZy;] fu;a=d lg vuqe.My inkf/kdkjh] gFkqvk vkns”k U;k;ky;]lekgÙkkZ xksikyxat ds vkns”k fnukad 2-8-2000 ds izfrfyfi tks n.Mkf/kdkjh izHkkjh ftyk fof/k “kk[kk xksikyxat ds Kkikad 1256 fnukad 17-8-2000 ls fuxZr i= }kjk izkIr gS esa mYysf[kr funs”kkuqlkj fu;a=d lg vuqe.My inkf/kdkjh xksikyxat Kkikad 576 fnukad 1-7-91 dks vkaf”kd la”kks/ku dj ekfyd jktca”kh Hkxr dk edku tks ehjxt gFkqvk eksM ij vofLFkr gS ftlesa dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark y/kq flpkbZ foHkkx dk dk;kZy; py jgk gS dk fdjk;k fnukad 1-4-91 ls 31-3-94 rd eks0 1200 600 1800-00 :i;s rFkk fnukad 1-4-94 ls 31-3-97 rd eks0 1500 750 2250-50 :i;s ,oa fnukad 1-4-97 ls 31-3-2000 rd eks0 1875 938 2813- 00 :i;s izfr ekg dh nj ls fdjk;k fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkrk gSA g0 vLi’V 30-8-01 fu;a=d lg vuqe.My inkf/kdkjh 30-8-01Þ It is thus evident that the Rent Controller enhanced the rent as follows:- (i) From 1.4.91 to 31.3.94 – Rs. 1200 + Rs.600 per month for the main premises and godown respectively. (ii) From 1.4.94 to 31.3.94 – Rs. 1500 + Rs.750 per month for the main premises and godown respectively. (iii)From 1.4.97 to 31.3.2000 – Rs.1875 + Rs.938 per month for the main premises and godown respectively. Respondent no.3 did not make payment of the rent leading to the present writ petition. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. We feel disturbed at the dishonest approach of the State Government in not 3 complying with the order of the learned Rent Controller for making payment of the enhanced rental to the petitioner. It is relevant to state that respondent no.3 remained in occupation of the house from 1971 to 31.3.1991 covering a period of twenty years, at the initial rent of Rs.300 + Rs.150 per month. Secondly, it apepars from a perusal of the order of the learned Rent Controller that he has enhanced rent rather on the low side, and its increment is also very modulated. In that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the order of the learned Rent Controller in enhancing the rent. Indeed the respondents harassed the petitioner no end by not making payment of the rent with effect from 1.4.91, let alone the question of enhanced rental with effect from 1.4.2000, and the writ petition is fit to be allowed with interest. 4. We must deal with the issue which arises in our mind. It appears from the order of the learned Rent Controller that Raj Banshi Bhagat had filed the application for enhancement of rent, whereas the present writ petition has been preferred by Brij Mohan Bhagat. The doubt that the petitioner herein is one of the claimants for payment of rent is resolved by a joint lawyer’s notice dated 30.8.2001 (Annexure 4), on behalf of Raj Banshi Bhagat, Brij Mohan Bhagat, and Raj Kishore Bhagat (Raj Banshi Bhagat and Raj Kishore Bhagat being full brothers of the petitioner herein), on the respondent authorities for payment of rent at the enhanced rate which, perhaps, was despatched by registered post on 4.10.2004. It is evident on a perusal of sub- section (f) of section 2 of the Act that “landlord” is a person who is for the time being entitled to receive the rent. In such a situation, the writ petition at the instance of the present petitioner is maintainable. 4 5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand), which shall be paid along with the arrears of rent and interest. Respondent no.3 is hereby directed to ensure payment of the rent as per the order dated 30.8.2001 (Annexure 3), of the Rent Controller, and indicated hereinabove. The petitioner shall be entitled to interest @11% from the dates the amounts became due till the date of payment. mrl ( S K Katriar )