1. The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 29/06/1989, passed by the Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya, as a revisional authority, under the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (Bihar Act No. 4 of 1983) (hereinafter in short 1982 Act"only).

2. The petitioner is the owner of a building in the town of Gaya, a portion whereof is under the tenancy of the respondent Magadh Gramin Bank, Municipal assessment has been made in respect of the said building. Pursuant to an agreement between the landlord and the tenant, the rent of the building was enhanced to Rs. 1000.00 per month with effect from 1/01/1985. In January, 1987 the petitpetitioner filed an application before the House Controller for further enhancement of the rent. After enquiry, the House Controller by his order dated 15-6-1987 as contained in Annexure 3 fixed the monthly rent at Rs. 1700.00 per month. The tenant having failed in appeal before the Collector, as is evident from the order dated 24-11-1987 (Annexure 4), preferred a revision before the respondent-Commissioner. The Commissioner by his impugned order (Annexure 6) has fixed the rent at Rs. 1250.00 per month by holding that this is the maximum permissible rent, which can be fixed under Sec. 8(1)(c) of the Act.

3. Shri P. N. Singh, learned Advocate for the petitioner has assailed the impugned revisional order raising following two vital questions having a bearing on the construction and applicability of the provisions contained in Sec. 8(1)(c) of the Act:

(i) Sec. 8(1)(c) cannot have any application to such building which has been subjected to municipal assessment; and (ii) The proviso to Sec. 8(1)(c) merely provides for fixation of minimum rent and not the maximum and, therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of the impugned order.

4. To substantiate the first submission, Mr. Singh has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Chhagan Lal V/s. Aditya Prasad, reported in 1984 BLJR 132, wherein while construing the provisions of Sec. 8(1)(c) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (Bihar Act 3 of 1947), it was held that, the expression other buildings as used under this clause would mean the buildings in respect of which municipal assessment had not been made". The submission is that since admittedly the building in question has been subjected to municipal assessment, therefore, the provisions of Sec. 8(1)(c) of the 1982 Act will not apply to the facts of the present case. While elaborating the submissions, stress has been laid on the word other building, which according to him, has been retained by the legislature under Sec. 8(1)(c) of 1982 Act as well, which, according to Mr. Singh has consciously been done by the legislature with full knowledge of the pronouncement of this Court in the case of Chhagan Lal (supra).

5. In support of his second submission, Mr. Singh has submitted that the proviso to Sec. 8(1)(c) of the Act merely provides the minimum and not the maximum of the fair rent to be fixed. Learned Counsel in this respect has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Secretary, Balika Siksha Bhawan V/s. The State of Bihar, reported in 1990 (1) PLJR 61. In this case on an interpretation of the aforesaid provisions of 1982 Act, it has been held that the aforesaid proviso does not provide anything more than the minimum of the amount which is to be fixed by the Controller as fair rent. This interpretation of clause (c) of Sec. 8(1) of the Act has been given by the learned Single Judge by relying on English text of 1982 Act, which has been published in the extraordinary issue of the Bihar Gazette published on 21/02/1983.

6. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the private respondent has submitted that in view of the provisions of Secs. 5, 6 and 7 as they stand in 1982 Act, the existence of the word other"before building"in Sec.