The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the Rent Control Act and the 1960 Act to determine the status of the Committee as a 'local authority' and the applicability of the Rent Control Act.

S.K.Katriar, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the orders marked Annexure-7 series to the writ petition, issued by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Darbhanaga (hereinafter referred to as "the Committee"), whereby the rental of the shops occupied by the petitioners and let out by the Committee has been enhanced. Nine petitioners have joined together to raise a common cause, inter alia, challenging enhancement of the rent of the shops allotted to them.

2. Although the formal orders relating to the petitioners are different, they raise a common cause. I will, therefore, state the facts only with respect to petitioner No. 1 (M/s. Mahendra Prasad, through its partner Mahendra Prasad), unless specifically indicated with respect to any other petitioner. The nine petitioners

(1. M/s. Mahendra Prasad, through its partner Mahendra Prasad,

2. M/s. Mithila Alu Bhandar, through its partner Kailash Prasad Sah,

3. M/s. Kumar Umesh Prasad, through its proprietor Sakaldeo Singh,

4. M/s. Kapildeo Singh, through its proprietor Kapildeo Singh,

5. M/s. Satya Narain Sah Bhola Prasad, through its proprietor Satya Narain Sahu,

6. M/s., Lakshman Sah and Brothers, through its proprietor, Manoj Kumar,

7. M/s. Vishal Traders through its proprietor Ram Babu Prasad,

8. M/s. Baiju Bhandar through its proprietor Ram Babu Gupta and

9. M/s. Shiv Grain Stores through its proprietor Ram Babu Prasad)

are licensees from the Committee under the provisions of the Bihar Agricultural Prbduce Market Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1960), read with the Bihar Agricultural Procedure Market Rules 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The petitioners have taken shops in the principal market yard, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Darbhanga, on monthly rental where they are carrying on their trade and business. Petitioner No. 1 was allotted shop No. C-2 which was occupied in 1990 at a provisional rental of Rs. 300.00 per month. It appears from the pleadings of the parties that the shops and godowns were allotted to petitioners for the specific purpose of carrying on trade in agricultural produce on provisional rental to be rationalized on scientific basis. It appears that the issue relating to fixation of final rent had to undergo various phases since 1990 and seems to have ultimately crystallized and is sought to be implemented by the impugned order bearing letter No. 172, dated 25.1.2002 (Annexure-7), whereby petitioner No. 1 has been called upon to deposit the differential of the rent since the date of his occupation till date. Petitioner No. 1 by the impugned order has been called upon to pay the arrears amounting to Rs. 1,23,429.00.

3. While assailing the validity of the impugned action, Mr. K.D. Chatterjee appearing for the petitioners has advanced only one submission. He submits that enhancement of rent is hit by the provisions of sec. 4 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act). In his submission, the Committee is governed by the Rent Control Act, and therefore, it can enhance the rent only by resorting to the provisions of sec. 4 of the Rent Control Act. He relies on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Amrit Varsha Hindi Dainik V/s. Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board 1999 (1) PUR 1. He further submits that the proposition of law for which he places reliance on this judgment has been upheld in appeal by a Division Bench of this Court in Amrit Varsha Hindi Dainik V/s. Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board 2000 (2) PLJR 729. If it is held that the Committee is governed by the Rent Control Act, he submits, the Committee shall have to approach the authorities under the Act for enhancement of rent.

4. Mr. Ram Janam Ojha submits in support of the impugned order that the Committee is not governed by the provisions of the Rent Control Act and is, therefore, free to enhance the rent. He next submits that there has been no