The Government's delay in paying the enhanced rent was arbitrary and violative of the petitioner's rights, and the court directed the respondents to make adequate fund allocation for payment of enhanced rental as directed by the Rent Controller.

1. The petitioner is undisputediy an owner of a premises which has been in occupation of the Minor Irrigation Department of Government of Bihar and in which the Office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Minor Irrigation Department, Sub-Division- Jhanjharpur is located. The said premises was taken on rent sometime in the year, 1980 on a monthly rental of Rs. 125/-. It is not in dispute that thereafter the rent was enhanced from March, 1989 to Rs 800/- per month by the orders of the Rent ControlIer-cum-Sub-Divisiona! Officer, Jhanjharpur. The same remained unaltered for 15 years without any enhancement. Petitioner, accordingly, requested the Minor Irrigation Department for enhancement of rent. First, the Department reverted stating that toilet and bathroom facilities should be provided to consider the same. The same was, admittedly, provided by the landlady. Thereafter, the matter was again referred by the Department itself to the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Rent Controller, Jhanjharpur to get the rent fixed as it was a matter of occupation by Government of private premises. The Sub-Divisional Officer, after making enquiries and after considering the matter, by his communication dated 17.1.2003 addressed to the Assistant Engineer of the said Department at Jhanjharpur, directed that the rent for the premises would be Rs. 2,000/- with effect from 7.12.1995. This order of the Sub- Divisional Officer, Jhanjharpur was accepted by the Department. Correspondences have started as would be evident from Annexure-11, the letter of the Assistant Engineer to the Executive Engineer dated 4.6.2007 wherein several important issues have been fairly admitted. It is first admitted that petitioner, pursuant to her request for enhancement of rent, had agreed to and has already provided water and toilet facilities which were not there earlier. It was then fairly admitted that against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer fixing rent of Rs. 2,000/- with effect from 7.12.1995, the Department did not prefer any appeal for the reason that at Jhanjharpur, there was no possibility of having a private premises for a rent less than Rs. 2,000/- as fixed and further that there was no Government premises available. Under these circumstances, requests were made to sanction funds for payment of rent and arrears of rent accordingly. The Department then, on being satisfied and having agreed to enhance the rent with effect from 7.12.1995 to Rs. 2,000/- from Rs. 800/-, sent the proposal to the Finance Department. The Finance Department did not object in any manner to the said proposal which is obviously in view of the facts as noted above but required the Department to give a certificate that Government premises was not available. That certificate also has since been filed. The matter is now pending with the Finance Department for sanction and releasing of funds. From 1995, we are already in 2009 and what is most curious is that upto January 2004, the Department was paying rent at Rs. 800/- per month but after the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Rent Controller enhancing the rent even that meagre amount of Rs. 800/- is not being paid, the result is that the petitioner has not only been deprived of rent as enhanced, she has been deprived of the basic rent which was fixed over 25 years back. The only explanation for the delay and non-payment is lack of budgetary sanction and release of funds for the said payment. These basic facts are not in dispute as per the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner in fact is seeking enforcement of an order of the Rent Controller and writ would not be the proper remedy. regret my inability to accept the said submission. What is being challenged is the arbitrary action of the Government in not paying the petitioner what is legally and fairly payable. It is not in dispute that State has not disputed rather explicitly accepted the enhancement order. Having accepted it, it does not lie in