SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1976 Supreme(Pat) 165

PATNA HIGH COURT
Hari Lal Agrawal and S.K.Choudhuri JJ.
Surendra Prasad Sah
Versus
Kirti Bhushan Das
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 953 of 1973 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 13, 1976

Headnote:Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act-Secs 5 & 8(1)(b)-Fair rent of a building can be fixed on the basis of revised assessment which is operative from a date prior to the date of the application u/s 5 of the Act. (Para 8)

Judgment

HARI LAL AGARWAL, J.

1. This writ application arises out of a fair rent proceeding instituted by the petitioner in the year 1958 before the House Controller under the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947, briefly the Act.

2. The petitioner is the owner of a premises bearing Holding No. 68 situated at D. N. Singh Road, in the town of Bhagalpur. Respondent No. 1 is a tenant in the said premises and the monthly rental payable by him was Rs. 39.14. Before the general assessment by the Bhagalpur Municipality, the annual letting value of the holding in question, according to the preceding assessment valid up to 31-3-1958, was Rs. 300.00 only. This was raised from 1-4-1958 to Rs. 470/-. After the revision of the valuation, the petitioner made an application under S. 5 of the Act for determination of the fair rent of the premises in question, praying to fix the same at Rs. 47/- per month, being one-tenth of the amount of the Municipal assessment, as prescribed under Section 8 (1) (b) of the Act. The tenant in the meantime filed Title Suit No. 19 of 1960 in the Court of the Munsif, Bhagalpur, challenging the validity of the revised Municipal assessment inter aria on the ground that no notice of the same was given to him. The trial Court decreed the suit. The lower appellate Court reversed the same, but this Court in Second Appeal No. 6 of 1966 set aside the Judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court and decreed the suit on 29-6-1971 declaring the revised assessment to be illegal and not binding on the tenant. It was, however, observed that it would be open to the Municipal authorities to revalue or re-assess the holding in question from 1958-59 after giving notice to the occupier (respondent No. 1).

3. Coming back again to the fair rent proceeding. The House controller had earlier fixed the fair rent of the holding in question at Rs. 30.00 per month with effect from 2-4-1958 by his order dated 9-12-1964, which was affirmed by the appellate and the revisional authorities, on the basis of the old assessment prevailing prior to the revision of April 1958, perhaps on account of the pendency of a title suit. The petitioner came to this Court in C. W. J. C. No. 799 of 1965. This Court by order dated 9-11-1966 allowed the writ application, set aside the orders of respondents Nos. 2 to 4 fixing the fair rent of the holding in question and remanded back the matter to the House Controller for disposal in accordance with law as by that time the second appeal was not disposed of and the title suit filed by the tenant had been dismissed by the judgment of the lower appellate Court, and on that account, the revised assessment in question had become operative.

4. After the decision of the second appeal, the old assessment was revised, and for that reason, the fair rent would have been fixed at Rs. 30.00 only, being the one-tenth of the annual value of Rs. 300/-. This would have amounted to a reduction of the monthly rent already being received by the petitioner and perhaps accordingly, he allowed the fair rent proceeding itself to be dismissed for default on 7-2-1972 (Annexure-1). The matter, however, did not end at that stage, and the tenant filed an appeal under Sec.18 of the Act before the Collector, Bhagalpur, who by his order dated 30-10-1972 (Annexure-2), allowed the same and fixed the fair rent at Rs. 30.00 per month. This order was confirmed by the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division (respondent No. 4) by his order dated 24-5-1973 (Annexure-3). The petitioner challenges the appellate and the revisional orders aforesaid by filing the present writ application, and one of the grounds which has been taken and was urged with some force by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 (the tenant) was not a person aggrieved by the dismissal of the fair rent proceeding within the meaning of Sec.18 of the Act and, therefore, he had no right of appeal.

Sec.18 of the Act says that "









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top