By Prakash TatiaHeard learned counsel for the parties.

2.The appellant-State is aggrieved against the order dated 30.06.2006 passed by learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 6793 of 1996(P) whereby the learned Single Judge has fixed the lump sum rent of the premises in question, @ Rs. 4500 per month payable from 1.1.1990 till the possession of the premises has been handed over to the landlord i.e., 31.05.2006. The premises in question was initially let out in the year 1945 and had 17,451 sq. ft covered and 20,003 uncovered, total 34,454 sq. ft area.

3. Brief facts of the case are that a property consisting of 17,451 sq. ft. covered area and 20,003 sq.ft. uncovered area, total 37,454 sq. ft., was let out by the landlord to the Statefor running sub-jail at Sahibganj on monthly rent of Rs. 300/- per month with 22.50 paise per month as Latrine Tax.

4. The petitioner filed an application on 11.06.1990 before the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-House Rent Controller, Sahibganj for enhancement of rent which was registered as H.R. Case No. 10 of 1990. The House Rent Controller by order dated 21.10.1992 fixed 0.15 Paise per sq. ft. as flat rate for the covered area of 17,451 sq. ft. and for the uncovered area of 20,003 sq. ft., total 37454 sq. ft, which came to about Rs.5600/- per month, payable with effect from 1.7.1990.

5. The State aggrieved against the said order of the House Rent Controller, preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, who reduced the said fare to Rs. 390/- per month. This increase was 20 % of original rent of Rs. 300/- amounting to increase of Rs. 60/- per month + 20 % increase in Latrine Tax Rs. 22.50 i.e., increase by Rs.5 per month, which was made payable from the date of order of House Rent Controller.

6. The State preferred a Revision Petition against the said order, which was allowed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka vide order dated 30th December, 1994.

7. Aggrieved against the dismissal of the Revision Petition by the Commissioner, the landlord preferred a writ petition, being C.W.J.C No. 6793 of 1996, before this Court. The learned Single Judge after considering the facts of the case held that Deputy Commissioner applied Section 7 of the Act and he took into consideration the irrelevant matters as there is nothing to show that the petitioner or his predecessor-in-interest were ever called upon to make any repair work or to adjust the rent of one month in every year against the expenses of repairing, as provided by law. The learned Single Judge was also of the view that after 15 years of the litigation and that too in a matter where the possession of the premises has been handed over to the landlord, it will be unnecessary to remand the matter to the House Rent Controller again. The learned Single Judge after considering the facts of the case determined the rent at the rate of 15 Paise per sq. ft. for covered area and 10 Paise per sq. ft. for uncovered area as fair and reasonable rent. By this calculation, the fair rent comes to Rs. 4618/- per month. However, the learned Single Judge reduced this rent also only on the reason that it may be made lump sum amount and determined the fair rent to Rs. 4500/- per month payable from 1st January, 1990.

8. Not satisfied with this order, the State preferred the present L.P.A, which was dismissed by this Court vide brief order dated 21.02.2007 observing that there is delay of 90 days in preferring the appeal. However, after observing so, the Division Bench also observed that the appeal has no merit and the order suffers from no infirmity.

9. The State not satisfied with the order of Division Bench dated 21.02.2007 preferred Special leave to Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 306 of 2009. The Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the said Civil Appeal vide order dated 19.01.2009 after taking note of both the fact that the appeal was dismissed as barred by time and was also dismissed on merits, b