S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. This case arises out of an order of fair rent determined by the Rent Controller.

2. The petitioner is the tenant of the premises. The manner in which he is acting and handling the matter, as discussed hereunder, will reveal that the petitioner-tenant neither intends to enhance rent, nor intends immediate disposal of litigation but to prolong it. The building in question is in the prime locality of Ranchi in its main road bearing Municipal Holding No. 1605, Ward No. 2/B, Old Commissioners Compound, Ranchi.

3. The building is two storied comprising of about 40 numbers of rooms, hall, Verandah, Courtyard on an area about 10,000 sqf. It was taken by the petitioner on rent from the respondent @ Rs. 2,000/-per month. Admittedly, the petitioner is running a hotel in the premises.

4. It appears that the tenant having defaulted to pay rent for the period from 15th April, 1983 to 14th July, 1983, the landlord filed a Title (Eviction) Suit No. 182, wherein learned Special Sub-Judge, Ranchi vide its judgment dated 9th July, 1985 passed order against defendant-tenant (petitioner herein). The tenant-petitioner thereafter preferred appeal No. 71 of 1985(R), wherein this Court by its judgment dated 26th April, 1989 while allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Court below for eviction. The cross-examination of landlord was allowed in part and decreed, so far as the prayer for arrears of rent is concerned.

5. The landlord thereafter filed an application for enhancement of rent under the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, registered as B.B.C case No. 20 of 1991. The Sub-divisional Officer-cum-House Rent Controller vide its order dated 30th June, 1992 on hearing the parties and appraisal of evidences, decided rent @ Rs. 17,950/- per month. The tenant-petitioner moved in B.B.C. appeal No. 23-R 15 of 1992-93. In the said case, the appellant authority in exercise of power under Sub-section 2 of Section 16 of the B.B.C. Act, 1984 directed the tenant-petitioner to deposit the rent at the rate fixed by the Controller during the pendency of the appeal. The said order having not been complied, the appeal was initially dismissed on 5th March, 1993.

6. Another B.B.C appeal No. 36-R 15 of 1992-93 was also preferred by the landlord being not satisfied with the fixation of rent @ Rs. 17,950/- per month. The aforesaid appeal on hearing the parties, was allowed vide order dated 28th May, 1993 and the rent was enhanced to Rs. 25,398/- per month.

7. The tenant-petitioner thereafter preferred two revision cases, namely, H.R.C. revision Nos. 47 of 1993 and 34 of 1994. They were hard together by the revisional authority-Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi and both the them were disallowed by common order dated 30th December, 1997.

8. At this stage, one may take in to note different cases filed by the parties during the pendency of the revision cases. The revisional authority earlier passed a stay order on 19th July, 1993 against which the landlord moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2937(R). This Court vide order dated 14th January, 1994 set aside the interim order dated 19th July, 1993 and directed the revisional authority to dispose of the revision application in the light of the observation made in the said case.

9. The tenant-petitioner also preferred a writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 1806 of 1994(R) against an order passed by the revisional authority dated 31st January, 1994. In the said case, this Court vide order dated 25th January, 1995, directed the revisional authority to dispose of the revision application expeditiously and dismissed the writ petition.

10. L.RA. No. 34 of 1995(R) preferred against the order of learned Single Judge dated 25th January, 1995, was also dismissed with costs vide order dated 4th December, 1995.

11. Subsequently, a Civil Revision No. 147 of 1997(R) preferred by the landlord, was also not interfered by this Court vide its order dated 4th August, 199