Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the State and respondents of both cases. Both cases are being disposed of by this common order as the issues involved in both cases are same with respect to same premises.

2. From the side of Central Bank of India it is challenging the order of House Controller dated 13.10.1992 passed in House Control Case No. 13 of 1991-92 whereby he has fixed the fair rent of the premises at the rate of Rs 18,000/- per month , the order dated 20/06/1994 passed by the Appellate Authority–cum-Collector, Munger in Appeal No. 4/1992-93 whereby he has reduced the fair rent of the premises to Rs.14,000/- per month and also challenging the order of revisional authority in House Control Revision No. 4/ 1994-95 whereby first he fixed the rent provisionally at the rate of Rs.8500/-and confirmed the same vide order dated 02.06.1995, whereas petitioner of C.W.J.C.No.5403 of 1997 (Niranjan Lall Singhai –v- The State of Bihar & ors.) has not challenged the order of House Controller rather he has challenged the order of the appellate authority in Appeal Case No. 4/1992-93 as well as the order of the Commissioner on the ground of suffering from illegality and are liable to be quashed.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the two storied building situated at Badi Bazar at Munger having total area of 5100 sq. ft was given on rent on lease to the Central Bank of India. As per counsel for the Niranjan Lall Sanghai -petitioner the premises in question was given on lease for seven years in the year 1970 and thereafter it was further extended to five years. At that time the rent was fixed at the rate of Rs. 1300/- and it was extended at the rate of Rs. 1800/-. The tenancy was ultimately expired on 31.12.1987. After expiry, the petitioner- Niranjan Lall Sanghai requested for enhancement of rent but the Bank refused to enhance. That led to filing of an application before the Rent Controller-cum- S.D.O., Munger on 25/02/1992 (Annexure 9 of C.W.J.C.No. 5403 of 1997) claiming that the prevailing rate of rent in the area was Rs. 4-5 per sq. ft. The case was registered as Case No. 13 of 1991-92, the House Controller, before deciding the rent of area, sought report from the Executive Magistrate about prevailing rate of rent in the market area whereupon he submitted enquiry report dated 16/04/1992 (Annexure 10), found the prevailing rate at the area for Rs. 4-5 per sq. ft, recommended fair rent of Rs. 25,000/- per month. The Controller having taken into consideration the report of the Executive Magistrate and other relevant factors arrived at the conclusion for fair rent at Rs. 3.50 per sq. ft. .Accordingly he fixed the rent at Rs. 18,000/- per month.

4. The petitioner- Niranjan Lall Sanghai was satisfied with the order of House Controller, he did not file the appeal but the Bank being aggrieved by the order of the House Controller filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority-cum- Collector, Munger, which was registered as House Control Appeal No. 4/1992-93, the Collector reduced the rent from Rs. 18000 to Rs. 14000/-. The order of Collector did not satisfy either of the parties. Both moved revisional court, the revision filed by the petitioner – Bank was registered as Revision Case No. 4/ 1994-1995 and revision filed by Niranjan Lall Sanghai was registered as House Control Revision No. 5/1994-95. The Commissioner passed the order dated 13.01.1995 whereby he has provisionally fixed the rent at the rate of Rs. 8500/-. Liberty was given to the parties to produce the materials to show the enhancement of cost of construction of the house, as no party had produced the material, the Commissioner confirmed the provisional rent vide order dated 02.06.1995 as both the parties felt aggrieved by the orders of the revisional court, have challenged the same in this proceeding.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner - Niranjan Lall Sanghai submits that the revisional court misdirected itself in passing the impugned order in such