IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10248 of 2004 KRISHNA MOHAN LAL SON OF LATE RAJ MOHANLAL, RESIDING AT 120.n. SINGH ROAD NEAR DHEVAR GATE MANSOORGUN, BHAGALPUR, P.S. KOTWALI, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR – PETITIONER. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. COMMISSIONER, BHAGALPUR DIVISION, BHAGALPUR. 3. COLLECTOR, BHAGALPUR. 4. S.D.O., SADAR SUBDIVISION, BHAGALPUR – RESPONDENTS. IST SET. 5. SHAKUNTALA DEVI WIFE OF LATE JAGDISH PRASAD SHUKLA, RESIDING AT 13 D.N.SINGH ROAD, NEAR DHEVAR GATE MANSOORGUNJ, BHAGALPUR, P.S. KOTWALI, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR – RESPONDENT 2ND SET. ----------- 4/ 11-04-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of notice, nobody appears on behalf of the respondents to oppose this writ petition. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 16.06.2004 (Annexure-5) passed by respondent Divisional Commissioner, whereby in purported exercise of his power of review, he has allowed the petition filed by respondent no.5 and has reviewed the previous order dated 25.06.2003 (Annexure-3) passed by his predecessor and has remitted the matter back to the original authority. 3. Short facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present proceeding are that the petitioner is the landlord under the meaning of Bihar Building (Lease, Rent, and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (in short “the Act”). Respondent No. 5 is the tenant over the building belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner filed a petition under 2 section 5 of the Act for determination of fair rent before the House Controller, which was finally allowed by an order dated 25.11.1998 (Annexure-1) and a fair rent of the building premises belonging to the petitioner, was fixed. Respondent no.5, the tenant, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, preferred House Control Appeal No. 6 of 1998-99, but that was finally rejected by respondent Collector, by his order dated 04.06.2001 (Annexure-2). Thereafter, respondent no.5 preferred a revision application before the respondent- Divisional Commissioner under section 26 of the Act, which was finally heard and dismissed by order dated 25.06.2003 (Annexure-3) affirming the original order passed by the House Controller under the provisions of the Act. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that though review has not been provided under the scheme of the Act, yet respondent no.5 filed a review petition before the respondent Divisional Commissioner, which has been finally allowed by the impugned order dated 16.06.2004 (Annexure-5). He submits that the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction. 5. Despite valid service of notice upon respondent no.5, the tenant, nobody appears on her behalf to oppose the prayer made in the present application. Even there is no representation on behalf of the respondent- 3 State and its functionaries. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on examination of provisions, contained in the Act, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order impugned passed by the respondent-Divisional Commissioner is beyond the power vested in him and as such, it has to be held to be a nullity in the eye of law. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned order dated 16.06.2004 (Annexure-5_) passed by respondent- Divisional Commissioner is hereby set aside. 8. The writ petition stands allowed, but there shall be no order as to costs. BTiwary/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)