1. The origin of the appeal lies in dispute over determination of fair rent in respect of approximately 600 sq. ft. of land with structure thereon (henceforth described as subject-premises) in Mohalla Niwaranpur near Ranchi Railway Station. The appellant claims to be the tenant of the subject–premises and at present is paying rent at the rate of Rs.38 per month. This dispute has already undergone two rounds of litigations. There is also a subsisting eviction suit instituted by the respondent no. 5 against the appellant pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ranchi registered as Eviction Suit No. 7 of 2007, of which we are apprised in course of hearing of this appeal. So far as this appeal is concerned, that suit is not of any significance. The present appeal arises from determination of fair rent of the subject–premises by the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Ranchi in B.B.C. 10/2005 at the rate of Rs.6.50 per sq. ft. for covered area and Rs.2.50 per sq. ft. for common area. The order was passed on 16th September, 2011. The Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority confirmed such fair rent determination. The appellant’s writ petition seeking quashing of the order of the said three statutory authorities was dismissed by the learned First Court by a judgment and order dated 18th January, 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 4256 of 2015. The present appeal arises out of that judgment of dismissal. We are avoiding narration of particulars pertaining to earlier stages of these proceedings and outcome thereof, as we are, at present, concerned only with the determination of fair rent in 2011 by the Court of Sub Divisional Officer and confirmation of that order by the appellate and revisional authorities.

2. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellant, has argued before us that the authorities have not adhered to the provisions of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1983, while determining fair rent. He has specifically brought to our notice clauses 3 (iia) and (f) of the said Rules. His submission is that the statutory authorities have not taken into consideration the factors specified in those clauses while arriving at fair rent. The said two clauses specify two factors which are to be considered for determination of fair rent. First factor is the prevailing rates of rent in the locality for the same or similar accommodation in similar circumstances at any time during the twelve months preceding the date of order. The second factor is municipal tax or corporation tax of the building. Mr. Singh has asked for remand of the matter but to show his client’s bona fide, he has indicated to us that his client is willing to make certain lump-sum deposit and enhance the rent without prejudice to his client’s rights and contentions.

3. In an earlier proceeding, the House Rent Controller, Ranchi had determined the rent at Rs. 6 per sq. ft. for covered area, Rs. 2 per sq. ft. for open space and Rs.1 per sq. ft. for bathroom. That order was issued on 3rd December, 2007, but was subsequently invalidated and the matter was remanded. On remand, the House Rent Controller-cum-Sub Divisional Controller got the issue enquired by the Executive Magistrate and used fair rent determination in 2007 as the pegging point for determination of fair rent afresh. While passing the order of 16th September, 2011, he marginally enhanced the rent considering more than three and a half years had passed since then. In the initial computation of the Executive Magistrate, however, we do not find the foundation of arrival at such amount as fair rent. Neither the basis thereof is revealed in the earlier order of 3rd December, 2007. It has not been spelt out how the said sum for different categories of land and structure have been computed. We are of the view that fresh computation is necessary, taking into account the factors specified in the aforesaid provisions of the 1983 Rules.

4. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned cou